lomir

Thanks so much, JonS! MILSketch brought tears of happiness to my eyes!! I used Paint before and its a real pain to create symbols and unit notations.

Uhm... yes, the game always puts an unit as crew (in blue color) whenever its inside a bunker... But if you add another unit and give to the "passengers" (in green color) the same or a different AI Group than the others - "crew" and bunker, still nothing happens: they don't want to "dismount". Those concrete bunkers are so cozy...

Hi Montecuccoli, Yes, it's possible: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89218 Look forward to seeing your Afghan scenarios then. Cheers, Lomir

Hi all, Hope this help Cheers, Lomir

Hi c3k, Definitely there have been some changes in the TO&E. It seems that now all the seven APCs of the Mech Fire Support Sections within every British Coy carry a max. amount of 320 x 40mm HEDP... But, all these are 40x53mm HEDP rounds: to be used by three Heckler & Koch GMG Detachments that might not appear in this scenario (exactly, 10x32-round extra belts in every vehicle). The UGL (Under-slung Grenade Launcher) used in conjunction with the L85A2 rifle uses the less powerful 40x46mm HEDP round. And the cartridges are not interchangeable. That's why they acquired them but they couldn't use them (so it doesn't appear in the ammo bar, although they are carrying all of those grenades! :eek:). By the way... The 40x53mm M430/M430A1 HEDP grenades weight 340g. while the 40x46mm M433 HEDP grenades weight 230g. Some would be carrying one belt (the lucky ones): aprox. 11 kg. And two pixeltruppen carrying two belts each (poor noobies): aprox. 22 kg. It's the same of that old Russian ammo thingy... 7.62x39 or 7.62x54R?? Cheers, Lomir

The following documentary about some Canadian forces in Afghanistan goes with this threat and with the "Generation Kill" one, too. I post it here because you might want to see the problems a wheeled LAV III vehicle - here in particular, can face in the common Afghan roads used for patrolling. Maybe that's why they are calling up the good old tracked M113s. It's in the third video, but I think the whole documentary is worthy to be seen. Afghanistan: The Other War part #1 Afghanistan: The Other War part #2 Afghanistan: The Other War part #3

I've thought that this thread should steal part of the limelight again... A NATO module lil' bone from BFC on the next weeks would be nice (wink, wink). Meanwhile, I make a wish: to see the Mercedes-Benz G-Class included. We have already seen the heavy warhorses, but what about the light armoured vehicles? In fact, MB G-Class variants can be found (among many others) in the Canadian Army, the German Army (under the name "Wolf"), the Dutch Army and the U.S. Marine Corps. Some pics: Two G-Wagons of the Canadian Army: A "Wolf" of the German Army in Afghanistan: Another German G-Class model: the Mercedes-Benz 250 GD kurz: In the Royal Dutch Army (the W461 290GD in WMIK-style): And what about the U.S. Marine Corps Interim Fast Attack Vehicle (IFAV) for some Weapons Company?:

You are welcome. Hi all, I've done the following comparison chart of all ranks and insignia of CMSF's armies. If you see something that is wrong, please tell me here so I can change it. Because I'd like to upload it to the Repository on the next days so anyone that wants to have it can dowload it. I still haven't found in the game the Syrian insignia with one chevron pointing downwards that it would match with a OR-2/OR-3 Private First Class (Jundi Awwal), although I've got the feeling I've seen it before... but it could be as well that I'm imagining things. Anyway, if by any chance you've seen while playing an insignia that it isn't pictured in this chart, you can take a screenshot and I'll be pleased to add it to the chart. Cheers, Lomir

To those thinking it would be better to set CMx2 in the "near" future (2015-2025) and always with respect for your wishes, Have you considered the discussions around here and arguments we'll get into with questions like what generation of new weapons the Russians/Chinese/Americans/Europeans are suppossed to have by then, which systems should have been improved and which should have been already sent to scrap? And how does it work technology that there isn't any public data source/field testing? Even more, the Western armies have been investing billions of euros in the last years into their Future Combat Systems, and most of them are about to see the light during the next five years if they haven't already done it - If I recall correctly, only the personnal system for a soldier will cost something between 20,000 and 30,000€, with "sci-fi" high technology stuff we didn't even dream of a few years ago. The lethality/accuracy of weapons is going to be much more higher and Western casualties should drop. Does it reminds you something? The duck shooting sensation again. Not to say that such a kind of war will involve, and will be actually win, not so much with the ground-forces war CM could depict, but with "la crème de la crème" of each country's air assets, long-range cruise missiles and thousands and thousands of tons of precision-guided "smart" munitions. All this considering that in such a conflict the use of tactical nuclear weapons would be a reality when the balance will start to tip in favor of one side. The only end of this should be well known to everyone: the U.S. Marine Corps walks cheerfully into a rubbled city of Moscow. Well, and the conflict could be more local, but there still are the questions about the future technology as the troops involved will probably be SFs or the best quality ones available, so it doesn't matter that you set it in 2020 than in 2100, because everything will be totally fictional - the conflict, the weapons and the TO&Es. At least with the Cold War (1980s) the only fictional part would be the war (of course, it will always be in a modern setting if you don't want a real-life asymmetric conflict) and IMHO, the older generation of weapons with lower accuracy will allow for different tactics. It would be better than the opposite. This, or set it right now, so what it's presently in the armies, it's what they are going to get: end of the problem of the future last-moment acquisitions of weapons and possible changes in the structure. For me, both settings would be alright. More than one year ahead in the future since the game is released and I believe that pretty soon there will be loads of complaints about how realistic is the game. Just my two cents. Cheers, Lomir

When police found the remains of pudding they did say: "Gents, it bears all the signs of a professional job." By the way, did you know that in WW2 there was a Syrian brown bear enlisted in the Polish Army? He was adopted as a cub and when he grew up he was trained to carry heavy mortar rounds. When Polish forces were deployed to Europe the only way to take the bear with them was to "enlist" him. So he was given a name, rank and number and took part in the Italian campaign. He saw action at the Battle of Monte Cassino. He was called Wojtek (Vojtek in other sources). http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ynz2QBeb5Ok Cheers, Lomir

It's not a modern MG42, tyrspawn, please call it properly: it's a military harmonica. You can see it here, playing as he rides (his Mungo) west into the setting sun... Oh well, probably he's just giving her a good-night kiss

Hi Javolenus, The closest thing you can do now to order a "General Clear Target" is: During the 'Setup Phase' or when time is paused (ESC key), you can Double Left click on a unit (that's for selecting a Group formation: for example, that is all the units, vehicles included, from the Recce Platoon, B (Support) Coy, Scots Guards. Or said in a different way, the icons that are highlighted when you normally select a unit) and then you can still SHIFT + Left click on any icon of the units from different formations that you want to add to this Group. The icons within this Group are green colored - if you SHIFT + Left click on the (green) icon of any of this units you can take it out (deselect it) from the Group. Important: the game won't remember the "extra" units you added to this Group, it's something temporal until you deselect the group, so if later you Double Left click on any unit, back to the start: you'll just select that unit's formation and you have to add again any extra unit to the Group using the SHIFT key. If you want to select a really big group with units belonging to many different formations, or if you want to select all the units from your side, you can zoom out the camera and using SHIFT + keep a Left click & drag a selection rectangle around multiple units. All your units within the rectangle will be added to a Group (their icons get a green color). Alright, so now you might use the 'Instant Commands' (those great unknowns). These are the three little buttons on the top left of the Button Interface. From left to right (I quote the Manual): PAUSE: instructs the unit (or Group) to temporarily halt all active orders and wait. [...] This button is a toggle, and by pressing it again, the unit is ordered to resume what it was doing. CANCEL ALL: deletes ALL active commands for the unit (or Group) instantly. If you have plotted a long chain of waypoints, this command allows you to delete all of them with one click without having to delete each waypoint one by one. So, you can use it to stop fire and do nothing for the moment. EVADE: deletes all active commands and instructs the unit (or Group) to take immediate evasive action. This may include moving to cover as well as popping smoke, if available. [...] Yes, you can as well use it if you need to stop fire and run away. You can use 'Instant Commands' in both Real-Time and We-Go ("turn based") styles of play. Cheers, Lomir EDIT: Apocal was faster...

Hi, Cover and concealment are different concepts. Cover provides you protection from the enemy's weapons. Concealment hides you from enemy's view. Usually cover provides both protection and concealment - but think the case of staying behind a bullet proof glass: you are protected but not concealed. Concealment doesn't offer cover - to hide behind a dense shrub may offer concealment but no cover from enemy's fire. Said that, the cover usefulness depends on the weapons the enemy has available. It's not the same to hide behind a wall when they are shooting at you with a 5.56mm cartridge than with a 20mm ball... and it goes without saying that there are much heavier weapons on the enemy's side. So, what it's good for something is no so good for something else. You can't give a general indication of cover without saying what do you consider enough cover: from light weapons? Let's assume that. But cover and concealment must have the next conditions: 1. Orientation: the hiding place must stay between the enemy and you. 2. Capacity: it has to be large enough to protect your entire body. 3. Thickness: it should be thick enough to stop expected incoming projectiles. The latter has been already talked. Orientation: let's imagine again the wall. What if the enemy comes from behind? No cover, no concealment. What if the enemy is a helicopter? etc. Capacity: the wall in the example may cover and conceal you, but only if you hide all the time... But you want to have a look of what's going on in front of you, don't you? In your squad behind the wall you'll have one guy kneeling that it's exposing just his head, another guy standing up uncovering as well his chest, etc. And in CM:SF they don't stay like this for long: they move and change their position, they react to incoming fire... All in all, the game is already too complex - the 1:1 model with each bullet traced independently, to make for you what in real life only your "common" sense could tell you: I think that scrubland with trees over there will be a better location than staying in the middle of the road. But well, you don't know if there are enemy snipers just covering this place and the expected aproaches... that's life. Some examples of good cover: Terrain features, trees, rocks, logs, rubble, trenches, sandbags, walls, vehicles, buildings and structures - remembering that their walls are not impenetrable cover even upon impact from small arms fire. Concealment is something much more tricky than cover and I'm not sure to which level has been taken in game. But there are two factors that I'm pretty sure that they affect the effectiveness of concealment in CM:SF: shape and movement. Shape: to be outlined against the sky will give you away and makes you more easy to be spotted. Movement: 'slow', 'hunt' and 'normal' movement orders makes you less likely to be spotted than 'quick' and 'fast'. Distance from the enemy's spotter has to be taken into account, so to get a color hint about your concealment level has to include something "gamey": from which distance and angle the enemy is spotting you. So again, it's common sense: high grass, shrub, a dense forest, a rubbled area, a ravine, etc. will likely conceal you more from the enemy than staying in the open, running and shooting with everything you've got in all directions. To end, "right click any point on the map and you get its height", well... for what? you can move around your camera, go to ground level if you prefer and have a look around, you can trace all the lines of sight/fire that you want and the game already tells you if you can make fire or not, and what's the distance. So, for what the information of the height of just one pixel? So, with respect to all the previous opinions, IMHO, this color coding thing is totally unnecessary. I would rather have other really useful features implemented if any. They had been talked in other threads before and they could improve the game for real. My two cents. Cheers, Lomir

The selector is in semi-automatic fire, so either they have just finished shooting in this moment or they are about to fire only one cartridge that has already been fed in the chamber. I can't believe they are such a good actors. By the way, it looks like the last one is leaning to much backwards, the first one not as much - maybe it's the camera angle, and the one in the middle is fine, although still not in the proper fire combat position - but it may be precision firing, so he shouldn't press his check so much against the stock. And someone should had tell them how to use the sling for better stabilization of the rifle. So, is there a photo where we don't get fussy?

Cpt Mike, MARS32, Just adding to the debate: M4 length with the stock retracted: 757 mm (29.8 in). G36 length with the stock folded: 758 mm (29.8 in). The same: the G36 is not so bulky. M4 weight: 3.1 kg (6.9 lb) with 30 rounds. G36 weight: 3.63 kg (8 lb) + 0.49 kg (1.1 lb) with the magazine and 30 rounds = 4.12 kg (9.1 lb). Yes, it's one more kilo (2.3 lb). Still, honestly I've never got tired from carrying a G36 a freaking whole day. It's not a matter of eating too much spinachs, but the rest of the equipment you have to carry on top of you makes the rifle the last thing you'll think about. Oh, I forgot your rank, Captain! Sorry, that was an easy joke I continue: M4 length with the stock extended: 838 mm (33 in). G36 length with the stock extracted: 999 mm (39.3 in). Yes, but: M4 barrel length: 368 mm (14.5 in). M4 muzzle velocity: 880 m/s (2,900 ft/s). G36 barrel length: 480 mm (18.9 in). G36 muzzle velocity: 920 m/s (3,018 ft/s). That's the difference that makes the M4 carbine "weaker" compared with the Heckler & Koch G36 assault rifle. One is lighter and with a size more suitable for close combat MOUT operations, the other packs a better punch at longer distances. Carbines and assault rifles, apples and oranges, gentlemen. About the reliability: I can't tell anything about the M4 since I've never used it, although I've heard that it's very picky with dirt and it's a great fun to clean. About the G36, I've never gone so insane to completely bury it in mud, but I can say that withstands really a lot of dust/dirt and that most jams occur due to bad quality cartridges. What that guy is doing - pushing the flash supressor against the floor, apart of as it has been said, being a bad manner - even if it has a dust cap, it's not such a big trouble. A bit of dust or loose soil that will blow away with the first shot - that it will be quite unaccurate btw, but it's normal that all parts of the rifle will end up touching the ground sooner or later if you are "fighting". That were my two cents. Cheers, Lomir

And I don't want to become involved in a camouflage-grog discussion, Smaragdadler, but the proper name is Steppentarn ('steppe camouflage'). Steppentarn is sometimes called "Wüstentarn" ('desert camouflage') in English-speaking sources, from the fact that it has been deployed in desert environments. And you are right when saying that the "Tropentarn" ('tropical camouflage') doesn't exist per se: it's the standard Flecktarn ('dot camouflage') on a light-weight fabric to wear in tropical climates. And these Chinese! they are amazing: they manage to make copies of everything!!

Hi all, From top to bottom: Corporal ('Arif). Sergeant (Raqib). Staff Sergeant/Sergeant First Class (Raqib Awwal). 2nd Lieutenant (Mulazim). 1st Lieutenant (Mulazim Awwal). Captain (Naqib). Major (Ra'id). Lt Colonel (Muqaddam). A soldier with no rank insignia is a Private (Jundi). One chevron pointing downwards would be a Private First Class (Jundi Awwal). I don't know if it's used in the game. I hope that helps. Cheers, Lomir

Right, what about trucks, Battlefront? With just one of this I could manoeuvre my whole Syrian Infantry Company!! Jokes apart, it would be really nice to have some truck for the Red Side in the incoming module Thumbs up, Alex.

Hi, Somewhat off topic, but a series of images of a rifle round that ricochets off a BTR and describes a perfect mortar-like trajectory. The round even slows down until stopping when goes up and then accelerates until reaching the ground. I've got to take my hat off, Battlefront!

Alek, I am wrong to say that each cannon is feeded from a 50 cartridge belt, placed in the ammunition box? If they would use the maximum combined rate of fire you have mentioned (2000 rounds per minute), in 3 seconds the gun is dry Although I don't know the crew ability to replace so quickly the ammunition boxes, 500 rounds in 15 seconds sounds a little bit exagerated

Hi all, I've already uploaded in the CMSF - British Forces Repository the second stand alone scenario of the British 4th Mechanized Brigade (The Black Rats), called UK Charon's Obol. It should be ready to be downloaded in a couple of hours or so. It's a combined-arms breach operation - perhaps the single, most difficult combat task a force can encounter and a manoeuvre commander can face. Remember that to suppress, obscure, secure, reduce and assault (SOSRA) are the breaching fundamentals that must be applied to ensure success when breaching against a defending enemy, and failure to synchronize effective suppression and obscuration with obstacle reduction and assault can result in rapid, devastating losses of your friendly troops in the obstacle or the enemy's engagement area. The map size is 1600 x 1200 metres (1 x 3/4 mile). You can see the real location at 36º56'N 41º47'E. The Blue force is under 200 men - so it's good news for those that found huge my previous scenario, UK Hell for Leather, and there is a time limit of an hour and a quarter: that is breaching. I hope you enjoy it. To be played Blue vs AI. CM:SF - British Forces module with v1.20 is required. Cheers, Lomir

Baloohund, In summer 2007 three of your Leos were in my base (Cerro Muriano, Córdoba), running some tests before deployment in Afghanistan. I had the luck to see them in the training camp and very close as well since every day they park them just in front of my unit's sheds, and the chance to speak with the Danish crews: I can say they were very hardworking and professional soldiers. I remember the Leos were painted in a white-grey-black scheme, and totally covered by some curious camouflage net, but I especially I found 'funny' the basha/tarpaulin, similar to those howdahs on the back of a war elephant, to protect the turret (and commander when open up) from the solar heat. I agree with you that Denmark would make a nice country to play with in CM:SF, as they would any other NATO or/and EU member plus our often allies from Oceania: Australia and New Zealand. And, of course, it would be great to have the Russians. And I'm still probably missing someone. So, many countries would make it in my wish list, as probably in other's here. Maybe in a CM:SF 2 set in a temperate climate? Until then, with no doubt, with me Battlefront has already a purchaser of the incoming NATO module. Cheers, Lomir

Hi Daisy, The TF Thunder campaign (taking into account that you always have victories) is: 1. Breakthrough at the Berm 2. Ash Shammas 3. Route Lightning 4. Dar al as Sud 5. The Screen 6. The Screen Part 2 7. Lock and Chase 8. Objective Normandy 9. Night Stalkers 10. Ambush Alley 11. Tiyas Detour 12. Heads Up 13. Hims Homes 14. Street Sweepers (and end of campaign) If you have been defeated in scenario number X you go to: 1. > Following the Wadi 2. > High Points, Low Points 3. > Dar al as Sud 4. > Air Warfare 5. > The Screen Part 2 6. > Lock and Chase 7. > Objective Normandy 8. > Night Stalkers 9. > Dagger Fight 10. > Into the Valley 11. > Mountain of a Mole Hill 12. > Fleeing the Scene 13. > Point Blank 14. > (end of campaign) 22 different scenarios in the TF Thunder campaign. It's a good idea to make always a savegame at the beginning of every scenario, so you can afterwards reload it and try to achieve a victory or immediately surrender, so you can play the alternative Cheers, Lomir

But the armoured vehicles rocking back and forth on their track when going from very fast speed to a dead stop, definitely not.