Fūrinkazan

Maybe it depends if you play the game in real time or not. I know that some people don't give fire order except for area shooting. Some give fire arcs, and certainly other want to control everything. I play real time and use cover arcs depending on situation. It's funny how the game experience and "feeling" can vary between players. I have no problem with your opinion. I find interesting that you don't have this problem and you can disagree with me or express another point of view, i will never be upset if someone disagree with me. It's always interesting to exchange opinions. If something in the game is a problem for me, it doesn't mean that it is the case for the majority of the community. In fact, i'm satisfied with the game, and i hope things will get better with the future modules, but i feel a few things are frustrating. For exemple i think we have to much infos on enemy units in the iron mode, or i think that infantry behaviour under fire maybe changed in some situations, a few things about tanks. But that's only my point of view....

I don't know if there is a spotting scenario. I can only tell you what i've seen while testing snipers. Without fire arcs and orders, all snipers spotted infantry at about 1800 / 1900 m max. I think that, for snipers, at longest range (2000 m+) you are invisible. The map was flat, with best conditions, no wind, no cover. A Syrian tank was immediately spotted at 2 500 m i don't know for longer range. At first i thought that 1 500 m was the limit but i discovered that infantry moving fast is spotted at longer range,1 800m, than walking men. I've just done a quick test to be sure : If Syrians use the move order (shortcut "N") first contact at 1 500 m. If they use the faster move order (shortcut "I") first contact at 1 800 m. Same troops, same map. So it seems that the speed of infantry as an effect on spotting.

2 Jonny(FGM) I had the case last week with two Syrians sniper teams against Stryker infantry. No target order for the snipers, at about 200/250 m, the sniper started to shoot at infantry (2 or 3 shots) and then, i was thinking like you : no target = no security team shooting. But a few seconds later, he opened fire and was killed by a grenade launcher. The problem is that you can't predict if he will fire or not especially at short range. During my testing with snipers, one group of Syrians came as close as 150/200 m of the snipers and nobody opened fire on them. For Javelin and RPG, i think it depends of range and if there is infantry or not. If you use a target order to destroy a tank, the other man may shoot at infantry and the time the javelin is targeting, you are spotted. I saw one shooting an AT-4 before the jav was ready and they were both eliminated by the tank. Maybe you are right, and i will try to use more fire arcs to see what happens. When i said that many players had the problem, it's because if i remember well there was a thread about this. For RPG, as they shoot immediatly, this doesn't give the time to the other man to open fire. But if the RPG shooter has to change position before shooting or if he is reloading ... It's more about a lack of control. If i remember, on the other thread, some players wanted separate cover arcs, on for infantry, the second for targeting vehicles to avoid the problem. If i can take screens while playing, i will show you. For me it happens in urban combat, or when ambushing.

Alex, i'm glad that you enjoy my work and i hope that you'll find it useful. I wanted to put images and more details about all the rifles but the project was getting bigger and i didn't want to put details that would be boring for the reader. So, you have an idea of real life and you can compare with the game and find it accurate or not. First i only wanted to show screens and results, then i said why not testing against vehicles, and why not testing the sniper in HQ team etc... I even made a few videos. I had one with a taxi cab taking four shots of M107 .50 in the engine at 100 m without any problem (the indicator of the engine state was still a big green cross). But the video was to big and i didn't have the time to compress it and keep the quality. Once you start, it's sometimes hard to find a limit, and all this takes a lot of time. I will try to update the file with the snipers in the NATO module if people are interested. I had multiple goals when i started this : First, share informations, talk about tactics (snipers, tanks, infantry whatever..) and have the opinion of other players. Then maybe help new players. Talk about the things i think are not correct in the game (maybe i'm wrong about some points) And maybe have an answer or opinion of the developers about few things that bother me in the game. For exemple, many players had the problem with Javelin/RPG/Snipers teams destroyed because the security member opened fire. You target a tank, and the other guy shoots infantry then "boom !" you'are dead. The same about changing position, the Javelin or RPG killed while reloading. Frustrating. That's not a bug, but i think that the behaviour of infantry should be changed in some case. Or maybe change things about target orders. I think it's better to convince that to impose your opinion. Maybe it's possible to show by this way to those who are still playing CM1 that this game is great and fun. Now that i'm better with screenshots and video, i would like to show things about machine guns (placement, the best way to use them in the game) and maybe tank formations and deployment. I'm a WW2 fan, and i've been reading books like "Panzer tactics" by Wolfgang Schneider. I think it could be fun and useful to see if real life tactics can be reproduced in the game. Once, in a QB with Syrians i had 9 T72 against 3 challengers. I couldn't beat them. So i remembered that Schneider in the book recommands 100 m of spacing between tanks. Using this tactics, i destroyed the Challengers loosing only one tank, certainly because wide formations allow to hit the ennemy not straight in his frontal arc but a little from the flank (but maybe i was lucky). Screens or vids of tank formations and tactics may help those who don't like to play modern warfare. Maybe having a place were we could put videos about tactics or tips on playing the game should be a good idea. so, i can't promise, because of the time it takes, but i will try to make a few vids and post them to have opinions of other players.

I have uploaded my file on the repository today, and hope it will be published. I wanted to do it yesterday, but i suffer of migraine and all i could do was testing my bed. The file is called snipers, it's a pdf file and it contains all the screens and comparison for the rifles, a test against vehicles (tank, BRDM, BMP-1, civilians) I give my opinion on spotting on the game and rifles and there are a few advices for using snipers. Hope you'll find it useful. 2 Alex, when i said i was astonished, it's not because i thought that the video was fantasy or fake, but because it seems "easy" for them to hit at 2300 m. From what i've been reading, targeting at more than 2 000 m is difficult and can only be done in the best conditions.

Alex, I've just seen the video and i was astonished. I watched the english version, because unfortunatly i can't read or speak russian. I didn't know the Lobaev SVL sniper rifle since it's not in the game, i did no research on it. The .408 Chey Tac cartridge seems to have a 2 400 m +effective range, more than .50 BMG : 1 500 / 2 000 m and the .338 Lapua Magnum : 1 300 1 600 m. The rifle seems to be effective at 2 200 m with selected ammos. I don't know at what altitude this test was done but it seems that for the two world records it was 1 000 m and about 2 000 m and the shots were aided by the ambient air density. On the video it doesn't seem to difficult to hit a target at more than 2 000 m, but of course this is not a combat situation. But, if everything is true , this may prove that very long sniper shots are possible and maybe not propaganda. And that's not far from the world records. I would have like to make longer shots in the game, but due to spotting distance of infantry it was impossible. As i said, i tried to make Syrians walk to have easy targets but at more than about 1 600 m my snipers could not see them. It's strange. Why running men are spotted at longer range, and why can't we spot infantry at more than 1 900 m in the game ?:confused: I would like to know what is the maximum distance you can spot a walking man in the best conditions. When i started testing, i tried to kill a tank commander at 2 500 m. He was spotted in is turret, and snipers started to shot but i had no success at that time. If they were able to see a man in is turret at that distance, they couldn't spot infantry near the tank, if i remember well. There are a few things that i think are incorrect in the game concerning snipers. But you will make your opinion by yourself when you'll see the screenshots i've made.

Thanks to all for these informations and interest. To MikeyD : i did a lot of sniper testing and i thought that it was impossible to hit a target at more than 1500 m with the .50 cal rifle but i was wrong. First, walking troops are spotted at a shorter distance (about 1500 m) and a faster move order made them spotted at about 1850 m ( for U.S., U.K. and Syrians snipers) So if you let the time to the sniper to aim, you have a chance to hit the target. That was in the best conditions of visibilty. I have seen many targets hit at about 1 500 m. But it's harder when Syrians were crawling because you loose the visual contact. I could not spot infantry at more than 1850 m in the game, so i don't know if it's possible to spot at longer distance. The world record is at 2 475 m by Corporal of Horse (CoH) Craig Harrison with a L115A3 Long Range Rifle. It took 9 shoots to estimate the distance and the first shot on target was deadly. It seems that he shot two lmg servants during this action. Before the record was 2 430 m for Corporal Rob Furlong I don't know if it's propaganda but it seems that the L115A3 is quiet accurate at more than 1 500 m but you have to be lucky. In the game do not expect more than 1300 m (my record with this rifle) since snipers don't shoot at higher distance even when ordered to . That's not the case with the .50 cal . I would like to share the results of my testing and i think i will have finish the document this week-end. You will find a few real life world records, the characteristics of the rifles (range etc.) and screenshots of the action. First, a battlefield view with all the targets and distance, then what i called the harassment zone, and the lethal zone of all the rifles. I did a chart with the number of targets hit, the average by rifle, and the range. I tested all the rifles the same way to compare. You will find the details, but this takes a long time to prepare everything. I did also anti-material tests against vehicules. By the way, the sniper who did the 1 800 m shot in the game was a "only" a veteran.

Thanks for the info Alex. You were right. I did a test in the same conditions and the snipers spotted at 200 m max. The strange thing is that i had a company hq that spotted at 730 m . So it seems they have different NV than snipers. On this link http://www.snipercentral.com/svd.htm i found the two scopes available for svd : NSP-3: 2.7x, 7 degree field of view range of approx 300 yds (274 m) PGN-1: 3.4x, 5.7 degree field of view range of 400-500 yd (350/450 m) So maybe they have the NSP-3. i also did at night test with the M110 an i had devastating results on syrians at more than 500 m. 3 hits between 700/600m and 17 between 500/400m on a group of 30 men. It seems that this rifle is equipped with The AN/PVS-14 Monocular Night Vision Device and that it has a range of detection of 350 m and range of recognition of 300 m. If i'm not wrong, that's a huge difference with the game. I will try to test the detection of the other rifles to see if there is a difference, but it's hard to find real life detection range for all the rifles and to find what kind of night vision device all the troops have. I agree that RPK is not an mg, but it is considered as a light machine gun, and the range is about 500 m and i think that it should shoot short bursts like in this video because it seems it's a full-auto only weapon, so no single shot : I thought that at 500/600 m it would shoot 3/5 bullets bursts instead of one single shot as i've seen.

Hi all, I'm finishing a little sniper guide for the game and i hope to publish it this week-end. It will be a pdf and you will find a test of all the sniper rifles in the game with screenshots. I can now give you an useful info that i discovered about spotting. I wanted to see if it was possible to hit a target at more than 1500 m with the M82A3 .50 caliber. I thought it would be easier with a slow target and i ordered the Syrians troops to move at low speed ("I" shortcut) instead of running. I was surprised to see that snipers "only" spotted at 1500 m. When Syrians were running they were spotted at about 1850 m. There is 300 m spotting difference between running or moving troops. I did the test twice to be sure. I decided to make the Syrians run at about 1800 m of the snipers. They were spotted and i had a successful shot at about 1830 m ! You can see it, view from each side : http://s1012.photobucket.com/albums/af249/furinkazan7/?action=view&current=1800MSHOT.jpg http://s1012.photobucket.com/albums/af249/furinkazan7/?action=view&current=1800MSHOT2.jpg I wanted to do a comparison test at night and i started with Syrians special forces equipped with svd. I found that they didn't see anything at night. They have the night vision icon but it doesn't seem to work. Other Syrians troops (HQ, other infantry) could see at more than 600 m but not the sniper. So i believe that there is a bug here. In the game manual, i saw that the RPK can only fire full-auto only and so the RPK-74 i think. During a 600 m testing with an hq squad, i saw an rpk-74 shooting single shots (i wanted to test the sniper of the group) so, if this weapon is like the RPK, full-auto only, there is maybe also a problem here. Another question : if the RPK-74 has a 500 m useful range, why doesn't it shoot short bursts ?

I tried the new 257.21 drivers and the flashing problem is still here. I also modified the game profile with nhancer, an utility that is very useful to tweak games (you can change nvidia profiles : sli, antialiasing etc...) but it didn't fix the problem. I tried the new drivers with il2 1946, also an opengl game, and there was no flashing problem at night. So i decided to make a copy of il2 profile to use it with cmsf without success. It seems nvidia did not change anything about that bug and i'm afraid that we will have to revert to old drivers or to live with this. I noticed that when you shoot with a machine gun for exemple, you see the flash when you're behind it but not when you're in front and the shooter is behind you.

This subject was already in this thread : http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86637 It seems it's difficult to code this feature especially for the AI. I had datas about T-62 tanks and they have a minimum range of 20 m for the main gun and 19 m for the mg. I think that in the old CM series we didn't care about gun elevation because the environment was more abstracted. But now it can be a problem especially in mout. In CMBO some guns had restrictions : I'm thinking about stugs en SU . They were limited on the right and left forcing the vehicle to move if the targets is out of field of fire of the gun. So maybe this could be reproduced in CMSF. I think that minimum range could be easier to put in the game and would avoid some frustrating problems when fighting in cities. In narrow streets, tanks can't shoot the buildings on the flank because there is not enough space for the turret to turn. When playing with Syians i had the case when an M1 destroyed my infantry at point blank range in a narrow street, (this happens with the US troops or the Brits too...) while in real life , the tank would not have the possibilty to shoot with is main gun. Or, you have your infantry on the roof of a building and they get killed by a tank Which is at 1 m of the building's wall. I feel this is frustrating for the player and minimum range may solve a large part of those situations. I'm not asking for exact real datas for each vehicule, but maybe 20m for tanks (just like T-62) should be a minimum. For Gun elevation, sometimes tanks shoot in positions where they would be unable to open fire in real life. And this can bring the same frustrating situations. I had a tank down a hill where it could target the belly of an M1 and the M1 shot first, with is gun pointing up in the air, and destroy my tank. In this case i think the M1 wouldn't have the possibility too shoot or even see my tank in real life. I really enjoy playing CMSF and i can't wait to see new features of Normandy. I'm amazed and surprised even after month of playing of all the details of this game. I think that with a few details like gun elevation, and a few modifications with the behavior of our soldiers when under fire the game would be better. (About infantry behavior, I was able to destroy an entire company of syrians with british troops at more than 350 m. They stood bravely, and stupidly under fire without moving. I think that in the old CM series my soldiers were smarter and had a better sense of self preservation. It's certainly hard to code but this would also improve greatly the game. Vehicules targeted by artillery don't move, and i remember half-tracks moving when under fire in CM. When I started to play with CMSF i was disappointed. Syrians, when under fire simply died without moving or running away. Now that they panic, they survive and they are harder opponent. I encourage BFC team to work on this, and i'm sure that they will make our soldiers smarter and more human. They did a very good job in CM and i loved panicking soldiers, prisoners etc. I would like to see troops fighting until the last men or surrending at the first shot, crews panicking and leaving their tank. Please give us back heroes and cowards, and make our men more human.)

I agree with Lethaface because i think it's the most reasonable and human position. If we must declare war to all the countries that don't respect the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, we will have to declare war to almost all of the planet. Do we respect this declaration when we use torture, even it those men were terrorists ? Democracies should give the exemple first, by a strict respect of human rights and moral. Don't forget that also in our countries they are extremists, religious or not. Some people may believe that democracies acts like the police of the world. Do you think that without the terrorists attacks against United States we would be in Afghanistan ? I think that the Talibans would still be in that country doing what they want and that we would not take a part in that conflict. Do you think that we would have send troops to free Irak if Saddam didn't start by invading Koweit ? All the politicians of our democracies had good relations with him. We sold him weapons etc... Where is the moral in all this. This man was a dictator and a murderer but we would still have good relations with him without Koweit. There are many exemples of situations like this in the world. Thinking that our countries act as the police of the world is, to my opinion, wrong. Countries act for their own interests. We didn't react in Rwanda when almost one million people were exterminated, and there are a lot of other exemples. During the french revolution, in 1792, Maximilien de Robespierre said in a speech about the declaration of war : "The most extravagant idea that can come to a politician's mind is to think that we just have to come with weapons in our hands in a foreign country to make them adopt our laws and constitutions. Nobody loves armed missionaries and the first advice that give nature and cautiousness is to fight them like enemies." Of course, it's a good thing that Saddam is out, and Taliban are extremists who kill innocent people, but we should think also to the human cost of all those wars. How can we give lessons of democracy if we shake hands with dictators and if we don't respect the declaration of human rights ourselves ?

Could it be possible that we may have incomplete forces ? For exemple, a company with missing vehicules or platoons, or squads with some missing men. I would also like to have more choice like on the editor : The hour of the battle The state of the troops (tired, motivation etc...) I think that the fact that we will have more choice, and especially the choice of the map is already a great advance. I really loved the fact that in CMX1 we could have very different troops (green, veteran) and sometimes not always what we wanted. Even if you had taken veteran company, they were sometimes green or elite squads. This, i think, made more interesting battles.

It seems that in june 1944 on the western front, germans had : 39 Pz III 758 Pz IV 655 Panther 102 Tiger I 158 Stug 179 Captured tanks But they were not all engaged in Normandy For Tiger II : The Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 503 Had 12 tiger II in its 1st company (Porsche turret). After Goodwood, the third company received 14 Tiger II (12 Porsche, 2 Henschel turret, tiger 300 and 301) but they never saw Normandy, they were destroyed by their own crews or by allied airforces. This abteilung lost 31 Tiger I and 26 Tiger II and destroyed 80 allied tanks during the battle of Normandy. I'm not against Tiger II in the game, but i only can hope that BFC will not forget captured tanks and that they will be better represented that in CMBO, just to respect history. But i'm afraid that we will see more tigers even if they represent a little part of the forces engaged.

I have just finished a QB, and of course i managed to get one of my Challenger destroyed:D. The crew did not run away and they killed an rpg team. The Syrians, despite heavy losses (21 dead, 7 wounded, 3 tanks and 2bmps) had no missing soldier. Brititsh were veterans, Syrians regular. I took a look at the editor. We have 6 levels of Experience, 6 of motivation, 3 for the physics, and 6 for the level of command. What would be the results of veteran with poor motivation, tired and with poor command ? This makes a lot of possibilities that certainly can change a lot the way troops react. And there is the environment. Are they under fire ? How far is the ennemy ? What kind of weapon is shooting at them ? Do they have wounded or killed in the group ? Do they have friends close ? With the old CM system, your men would certainly have run away, out of the danger zone, and after a certain time, you may have them go back to fight with a "!" for rattled making them more likely to panick. I think that tank crews are sometimes too though. It seems that this is less the case with the new version, but before, we could see crews attacking before the infantry in QB. I really doubt that when your tank is hit, with the shock, the noise etc... You can go back to fight immediatly. So, i think we should ask ourselves what are the setting of the scenario before judging the way soldiers react. This doesn't mean that there is no need for some changes.

JonS : I don't have any problem with routing troops or the word "missing". I think that all serious wargame must simulate human behaviour. So, sometimes veterans can rout and fanatics conscripts can fight to the last man. I took exemples in history to show that even the best troops can rout or surrender. I took exemples of modern wars, especially Irak, to show that western troops had a so powerful advantage that their opponent could not resist. And we don't have hand to hand combat or very few it seems. I took Afghanistan to show that our soldiers are much cautious than we are in the game and that they engage at long distance so they have the possibility to retreat in good order if things are not going the right way. Think of the firepower that we use against 200 Talibans equipped with light weapons (800 men, A10 for air support, missiles etc...). We are playing a fictionnal conflict. What would happen in real life. Somthing like in Irak : Embargo, massive airstrike, then assault by the most modern army in the world, with veterans troops. I don't think that Syrians would do much better than in Irak. In the game we can face veterans, and i've seen cracks and elite With complete equipement, and in good conditions. I think that to simulate this conflict we should have Regular or less Syrians, against regular or veterans, with somtimes a few crack, elite, US or British. Syrians shouldn't be in good conditions when it's time for the ground assault. Much less tanks, incomplete formations due to the preparation of the attack. It seems that in real life, no western tank has been destroyed by an ennemy tank. How many Abrams and Challenger do we destroy in the game ? Does it mean that the game is unrealistic or that scenarios are ? Or that we use bad tactics ? Has i said, i really doubt that they are cracks and elite tankers in Syrian forces (in the definition use in the game). If we put in scenarios crack and elite Syrians doesn't it false the result of the battle ? It's like having a lot of elite tankers in Allied forces in WW2. There were certainly a few, but much less than for the germans. If our troops rout in the game, it's maybe not a game problem but for me or the level of experiment of the troops, or the tactics. This game is great, but as i said i miss prisoners and man running on the map and sometimes exiting the map. I guess that BFC used the "!" system because it must be difficult to simulate this with 1:1 representation of infantry. 7thGalaxy, maybe this would cause you less problem to see panicked soldiers running away and rejoining after a few minutes, or living the map, than vanishing troops. That's the only big thing i find frustrating. We put our pixel soldiers in situations that maybe are not the reflect of reality, this may explain why they rout. We are trying to simulate battles that are equilibrated while it's not the case in real life. I still believe that any soldier can break under heavy pressure. And that's not different for modern men. Another little exemple : The 7th Armoured Division in Normandy, the famous desert rats. They fought in North Africa, and Italy. June 44, the first company of hauptsurmfurer Mobius attacks with 8 tigers in the direction of Villers Bocage. 5 Cromwell tanks are abandoned intact by their fleeing crews.

I don't want to compare modern forces to those of the past, but humans are still humans. Sparta was the only city without walls. They told to what we consider now as childern how to kill, to ignore death and pain. Why ? Because they had to face hand to hand combat. This is one thing to pull the trigger, use a missile, it's another to kill a man with your own hands. I think they were able to face horrible things that we would not accept for our soldiers, and we certainly don't want our children to kill people. I don't know if many soldiers would like to stay in line under artillery fire. And launch an attack staying in formation while your friends are hit by bullets or artillery. I have a good book about medics at that time and the wounds were horrible. The battlefield of Eylau was a butchery for exemple. When i see what WW1 soldiers had to endure, i just can't imagine the hell that it was (20 000 dead in one day during the Somme offensive for the british) The difference today is that we care much about our soldiers life. As i said they engage at longer distance and i don't think there was any hand to hand combat. When the resistance is to hard, they take better positions and use their support. That's wiser and safer. I would say that in more conventional war like Irak, the enemy simply cannot resist without airforce, technology, modern weapons. What would it be against a modern powerful country ? I'm not a specialist of modern warfare, but it seems that during the first gulf war there was about 100 000 dead irakians against 240 dead for the coalition. After WW2 The US troops could inflict heavy losses to other small countries (Vietnam : 58 217 Killed for the US, south vietnam 255 000 and north vietnam 1.5 millions including the civilians, war in Corea : NATO 3094 dead 520 000 dead in combat for North Corea). I saw documentaries about US British and French troops in Afghanistan. They take a lot of precautions, and use a lot of firepower. One case was interesting. A french tv jounalists team were following french troops and were taken under the fire of Talibans. We never saw any of them, and despite there was a lot of shooting and bullets real close they were very hard to spot. They decided to withdraw, and in order to do so, they shot an AT4 i think in the buildings were they supposed the fire was coming. And then a missile Milan, if i remember well, to disengage. I don't know if they hit or kill a single Taliban. In the game i had very rarely "!" soldiers with veterans US or British troops. They retreat, when under heavy fire when they have casualties but very, very few "!". I saw a thread about the distance of engagement for infantry i think. Some people engage at 100 m. I prefer, especially, with the British troops, engage at longer distance 300 or more depending on the weapons i have. When i started to play i used to advance and force the engagment when i was under fire. Now i try to spot, and engage at the distance that i want. I can tell you that the British can be devastating if the open fire at distance, their weapons are precise. Manoeuvring and flanking is also essential i think. The only case i attack at closer range is night combat or when enemy is heavily supressed in buildings. At night, with night vision you can assault at less than 50 m without being spotted in good conditions. I wiped out an entire Syrian company in one minute in an assault like this. If you're not equipped with NV, you can try to crawl at less than 20, 15 m of a trench. Then grenades, and assault. I'm experimenting with differents tactics for night assault in buildings, but it's harder to find a good solution. To resume, it's normal that we have routing troops in my opinion, because we have much more close combat than in real life. Anyway, there are no supermen on the battlefield and even the best can panick or surrender. They resist much more time than recruits who will run at the first shot. The level of experience of the two opponents is also crucial. This can change completely the result of a battle.

To be admitted in the french guard you hand to have 10 years of service and at least participated to 4 campaigns. You can see in this article, for exemple how efficient they were. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_hanau For the Spartans, i really doubt that a modern man can stand their trainning. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spartan_Army They used to kill the babies that were not judged strong enough to be soldiers. The young boys were in military life at the age of seven, living almost naked and forced to steal food to survive. They had the reputation to never surrender and never retreat. And i guess that everybody knows Leonidas and the 300 spartans:D. I saw a documentary about a battle in Afghanistan were US, French and Afghan troops had to free a village from the talibans. About 800 men + air support against 200 talibans. Afghan troops were in the front and when they received fire from the talibans they started to withdraw. An experiment Afghan leader made them go back to the attack. The french used a milan missile against buildings to help the progression. One french soldier died in the action, killed by a rpg. He was the driver of a VAB and his friends had to wait the night to recover his body. Real soldiers are much more cautious than we are in the game. I saw a Marine officer saying that they used to spot the ennemy and take position in places were they could eliminate them out of the range of their weapons. In the game, what was the experience of the troops you had to face. If you have crack or elite Syrians against Veterans US or British who will rout the first ? Now let's take a look at the old Book of the Ancients. I mean CMBO manual. Page 77 : "This does not mean, however, that as experience grows, soldiers turn into emotionless robots but they learn to deal with certain situations. and even more importantly, how to improve their chances of survival." About experience, i think that sometimes too much crack and elite on the battlefield, especially for Syrians. See CMBO manual : "you will encounter troops of this caliber only rarely", "only a handful of personalities/squads" And this can be the cause of unrealistic results. I understand that maybe scenarios designers try to make balanced battles and this must be very difficult. For exemple, if you take the list of panzerwaffe aces, only ten have more than 100 tanks destroyed. From 168, Kurt Knispel, to 100, Albert Kerscher. I have a list of 50 tank leaders and the last as 8 victories. For Knispel, it took years of very hard battles and luck, to reach this level of experience. I really doubt that there are men with this experience in the Syrian tank formations. Fear, bravery, experience, fanatism, are certainly really hard to simulate in a realistic way. But i think that with time and some tweaking, BFC will certainly do very impressive things. I think that the game engine allows a lot of possibilities.

There are many exemples in history were elite troops routed. The Spartans at the battle of Leuctra, the french Guard at Waterloo and many more in all nations. The fact that they are well trained etc.. Doesn't mean that they will not rout but that they will suffer more before they break. I don't like the system of vanishing soldiers. I miss the old CM 1 system, because you could sometimes take your men back to the fight. This gave more importance to good leaders. I also miss a lot prisoners, and i still hope that maybe we will have those features back. I once took a veteran group of US infantry prisoner in the mist. They were ambushed by two german groups and decided to surrender without a single shot. They were smart enough to see that fighting was a suicide. Somtimes it's better to run away and keep on the fight later than to die in a lost battle. See the Japanese during WW2. Very few prisoners, fighting to death for what result ? I was disappointed by the way troops reacted under fire. Syrians use to die, pinned down on building stupidly. After patch 1.11, i saw something very interesting. One squad was under the fire of a Bradley with 2 men badly wounded and one lightly. 3 men ran away and found cover.They were separated and the others try to rejoin. The first man could but the wounded was killed by the Bradley. He was too slow due to his wound. They reacted like humans trying to survive not like robots in a game. I stopped playing to watch them trying to survive and i was sad when i saw the wounded man killed. For fun i played a QB with four Abrams against Syrians. I was watching BMP's and tanks burning when i made a mistake. While two tanks were in overwatch, the others tried to flank the enemy. One Abrams was hit on the flank with only light damage. The crew (veterans) decide to bail out and to stop listening to my stupid orders for the rest of the battle:D. I really love when things like this happen. In CMBO, i was waiting for US attack near Remagen with Volkssturm conscripts. One mortar shell fell in the middle of the village i was defending and they all started to run away. No dead, no wounded. I took the manual to find the command "execute the traitors" but i could not find it:D. I was able to bring them back to fight after a few minutes. In fact they escaped the artillery preparation and would suffer heavy losses if they had obey my orders.

I'm not sure that would help the snipers. I had Humvee that spotted a few hundred meters before the snipers. The snipers started to have ? (each time a new unit was detected by M707), but they didn't have identification at longer range if i remember well. For exemple at night humvee spotted at 1700 m and snipers at 800m.

I was curious to see what troops can do at night, when they attack. I took on company of Syrian infantry, against on US without vehicules, facing each other, the Syrians as defenders. I was surprised to see that the first to spot were the javelins. I could see the entire syrian line at 1150 m. The rest of the company had only ? I was at about 400 m all the company had identified the syrians. I came as close as 150 m without problems. When my soldiers moved they used to loose contact. I opened fire at 150 m and the result was 14 dead 15 wounded and 36 missing. I wanted to do better so i took out the javelins and put the US in the back of the Syrians for the second attack. First contact for US at 450 m. I let the machine guns in the rear (400 m) and continue the advance in line. I was as close as 80 to 60 m depending on the platoons, but at 60 m syrians had a brief contact with one group. I decided to assault the syrian position at less thang 60 m. I gave bigger cover arcs to each group and an assault order. Then i saw something that i had never seen in any game. 90 men assaulting is very impressive. The front line was about 200 m long and i could see grenades exploding all the way with a lot of smoke. The result was devastating. 47 dead 34 wounded 9 missing In one minute the company was reduced at 3 men with no loss for the US infantry:eek:. I did the same test with two companies of syrian infantry against one US. One in a long trench and the other in buildings at about 130 m behind the trench. I attacked the trench with 2 platoons and i flanked the buildings with the third. I was spotted at 50 m by men in the first building but they lost immediatly contact. I simply opened area fire on the building to eliminate them with no loss. The trench was attacked at about 50 m With the same devastating results than before :37 dead 24 wounded 14 missising for 90 men at the start. I tried to do the same with syrians. I took an airborn company to take a trench hold by US infantry company. The few units that have night vision could spot us at about 400 m. But when i tried to get closer i was spotted at about 350 m. I could not get closer and i didn't have the fire power to assault the trench. Contacts between US and Syrians was not clear. I tried red vs red with one reserve company against one of the guard (no night vision). I was able to get very close to the trench before any spotting. At 25 m i still had no contact (my troops were crawling). It's important to use the slow move when you are close to your target. But not to far because your men are too tired to assault (i had this problem when attacking the trench with US infantry they were to tired for the assault order which i think is better for this) I decided to assault at about 25 m. Very bad idea:D. the attackers were defeated with 26 dead and 13 wounded. I decided to get closer and some of my soldiers were at less than 20 m when they saw the enemy in the trench. They started without orders to throw grenades with very good results. I decided to assault and could penetrate the trench, eliminating the defenders, but as i did not coordonate my attack i could only do this with two groups. Grenades were impressive and also the fight in the trench at very close range (to bad there is no hand to hand combat, but maybe in the future....) So, of course troops with night vision have an enormous advantage. But it's possible to obtain good results with the others if you are very cautious (well, that's versus the AI, against human it's another story) Buildings at night are still hard targets. I was spotted by Syrians at about 50 m and i was lucky to suffer no loss. But when the enemy position is identified maybe by the rear it's possible to launch a surprise attack. It's important to have very small cover arcs to control the fire of your troops and get closer. I used wide cover arcs for the assault but i'm not sure it's really necessary. I'm not sure, but it seems that visibility can vary at night depending on the scenario (moonlight, hour etc...). So, the spotting distance may be longer or shorter for the troops without night vision. Attacking troops with those equipement with normal Syrian troops is simply a suicide.

Thanks to all for you interest. To donnieitaly, I did a test against a BRDM 2 on the sniper efficiency trade. At about 400 m from the flank i counted only 1 burst of five bullets to destroy it. The 0.50 sniper rifle could only do light damage (optics) in the same conditions. The machine gun forced a bmp 1 at 600 m to pop smoke because of damages on optics, tracks etc.. I saw that the armor of BTR is 7 to 9 mm. No doubt that it would be destroyed like the BRDM. When i was doing research on the sniper rifle i found that a marine during the first gulf war took out a bmp1 at 1100 m. Don't know if this was luck, but i still believe that the sniper rifle is not powerful enough against vehicules especially civilans and non armored. During all my test i found that infantry can be spotted by other infantry at about 2000 m in the best conditions. I don't know how far you can spot a squad with binoculars in real life, and if it's correct in the game. I will try to find the time to test grenade launchers, but i think that weapon is less difficult to employ because of the area effects of grenades. I think the Russians employed them with very good results, better than mg in Afghanistan. No doubt that they will be very efficient on infantry and vehicules.

Hi all, With the same method as for snipers, i did a little test with mg and i was a little disappointed. Less killed and wounded and less suppression. With 2 light mg : less than 16 men down and only 6 missing for a company of 90 Syrians (opened fire at 1000 m) With four .050 cal much more suppression but not much dead and wounded. (Opened fire at 2000 m) I noticed that it was possible to hit at least two soldiers with the same burst when they were one behind another. So i changed little things on my test. Instead of a line, syrians were in 3 columns. I put the 2 machine guns at ground level on the buildings. I started to open fire at 800 m. I started to fire at the last groups of the 2 first columns. The first guys who were hit were those in the front of the column not those of the rear that i was targeting. Men were killed or wounded in all the groups. I could see bullets flying all the way true the columns and sometimes they touched a man in the front or rear. The most important is that there was much more suppression. Quickly i was unable to give them orders. The last column was intact. Stopped at 470 m of the mgs. I targeted the first group. Result in one minute : 2 men hit in the first group at 470 m 2 in the second group behind at 518 m 1 in the third group at 524 m They were all pinned down. No way to give them orders and this only in one minute:eek:. After 20 mn : 13 killed 18 wounded but 45 missing for 90 men at the start. All this with the fire of only 2 machine guns. For maximum efficiency of mgs shooting through groups of soldiers is the best way to obtain good results. If the enemy is in line, certainly try to shoot from the flank. I have seen a documentary about WW1. One veteran said that they were searching machine guns in the frontand couldn't find them but they were on the flank to kill a maximum of men. I think it's true in the game. Maybe by starting to shoot closer, i would have surprised with more effect the advancing syrians. They were stopped at about 400 m and could not return fire. In the attack, the line was much better and i could not suppress enough groups to block them. I did not try but i think they would have reach my position and destroy the mgs. So the position of mgs and the formation of the attack seems to be very important and can change the results dramatically. Hope this will be useful to other players. Personally, i learned a lot from those little experiments. I would like to say a big thank you to beta testers. I had a little taste of what this job can be and i really prefer to play .

MikeyD, thanks for interest. Glad to know that this can be useful. I started to test the weapons in CMBO with the 88 at gun and the stuka. It was easier for WW2 for me because it's a passion since i'm a kid and i have a lot of history books about tactics etc... Like many members of this forum i believe. I think it's useful to know what you can expect from your soldiers. Sometimes we are not happy with the result of a battle. This side is too strong etc.... When i started to play CMSF i was very confident in US tanks. I took a hard lesson at the first fight. I think many players, just like i did, rely on materiel before tactics. I was disappointed by snipers in the game, especially Syrians. I think it's my fault because i used them at too short distance and they were wiped out buy the US after on shot. In CMBO i was to confident in Tiger. I played the Villers-Bocage battle a lot of time to experiment different tactics. I have a very good book about this battle with comments of Lieutnant-Colonel Wolfgang Schneider who was instructor at the tank school of Munster. I took a few good lessons to and i had Wittmann's Tiger destroyed by a Stuart in a frontal shot that killed the driver ! With training i was able to finish the battle without a single loss for the german. For Schneider, Wittmann was too confident in is Tiger too. That's the reason of is death. And he could have better results in this battle with better tactics. When i played CMAK, at the end i use to take Italians, the same in CMBO with italians, romanians etc... and you learn a lot with troops that don't have big tanks or guns. This helps to use better troops too. I play Il2 1946, it's my second favorite game after CM. I used to choose heavy german planes with heavy weapons with bad results. I had the chance to read a book about flying on line called "in pursuit" and i was a better pilot because i started to think more about tactis than caracteristics of planes. In this book the author says that the best pilots fly the worst planes online. And they are very succesful. That's something to think about when people say "Syrians are too weak, this tank is bad etc..." When i started to play CMSF i use to loose with Syrians and When i took US it was the same. Why ? I didn't know the weapons and i wasn't cautious enough with bad tactics. I did a little test with machine guns. It seems that germans used to put their MG42 at ground level. This way, bullets do not go in the ground and fly in a straight way. You can hit two or more soldiers with one bullet. What i found fantastic with this game it's that this works. I had two 7.62 mg one on the third floor, one on the ground. I saw to times two soldiers hit by the same bullet of the mg at the lowest level (they were hit at the same time and they were one behind the other). I did the same with .050 cal and had the same result once. I think this can help in the placement of those weapons. Syrians were attacking in line. i would like to know the effects when you shoot from the flank or in a column. I think it's a tactic used in real life to have the more chance to hit a maximum of soldiers. I will try to do more testing, and i let you know the results.

I think i can answer your question SlowMotion. I just had a report from the front. Syrians decided to launch an night attack to try to identify the troops that wiped one company yesterday. Same map, night,no wind etc.... 1 Marines sniper platoon 3 M707 humvee Humvee spot at 1700 m Snipers at 800 m Contact is lost when Syrians stop moving. First man hit at 750 m Two at 650 and two at 600 one minute later. Syrians never get at less than 400 m of the marines. All units panicked and i could not give orders. The Company hq was eliminated at 400 m. The snipers could see 400 to 600 m when syrians were stopped. Very interresting detail : Those who performed buddy aid were Chosen as target by snipers. I saw at least 3 of them hit while they were helping the wounded. When they were at less than 500m the other members of the platoon started to open fire Joining the snipers. But when the Syrians are on the ground, they tend to stop the fire while snipers still shoot. Result after 20 mn : 27 dead 17 Wounded (red) 40 missing Without the humvee, Snipers spotted at 800 m. First hit at 700 m and second at 650. at 400 m of the marines positions, i could command only 3 syrian units. The company hq could get as close at 350 m but was eliminated. I gave a target order and the group fired with all weapons and some rifle grenades. 4 mn before the end of the battle, all syrians units were panicked. Results : 23 dead 17 wounded 46 missing Syrians were unable to spot the vehicules and snipers. So, don't attack snipers without cover and it seems it's better to let your friends die if you want to survive.