Rustman

I imagine not. The 9mm spotting rifle on the SMAW isn't a weapon, but an aiming device. I mean, it is lethal...I have a friend who served in Marines during Somalia and told me a story about his SMAW gunner shooting Somali with the spotting rifle....but it really isn't the most ideal weapon to use. It was designed for one purpose only...to get the rocket on target. Putting it in, while it would be accurate, I would really wonder...why?

As in real life, it is all METT-TC dependent. There is no cookie cutter answer to style that wins in every situation. It all really comes down to setting up the fight on your terms maximizing your strengths and undermining theirs. Sometimes that means immediately utilizing an overwhelming maneuver force emphsized by violence of action....other times, tactical patience is the key..deliberate, careful, well covered and timed maneuvers.

None. No enemy vehicle in conventional warfare has ever successfully scored a catastrophic kill on an Abrams. For that matter, I'm not sure if there has been any catastrophic losses from any enemy weapon system other than IED's. I know of one instance of the turret being penetrated from an RPG...a 1 in a million shot hit the hull/turret seam...thankfully minor injuries and the vehicle was relatively undamaged. Other than IED's though, I'm pretty sure the only losses have been from blue on blue incidents.

It isn't part of the standard MTOE, but it has been used occasionaly depending on the mission. The A Co of my Combined Arms Battalion in Iraq had a set assigned to them for operations around Habbaniyah for the 16 months we were there. They loved the things.

First problem has to do with the weapon. The javelin is a fire and forget weapon system. If the shooter can't see the target, then the targetting computer can't either to get a lock. Now, in real life...and I'm not sure if this is replicated in game or not...the shooter can direct fire the rocket similar to the dragon or TOW instead of a top-down attack...but whether the shot is possible or not depends on what is between him and the target. In addition, I'm not sure he would take the shot to begin with unless he actually has something specific to shoot at, like a room in a building, since the javelin isn't an indirect weapon system. It would really be a waste of a shot and probably wouldn't have much effects on target.

As someone who has been both a shooter, and, as it is, a real life target, I can explain the sound difference between the two scenarios. The reason enemy fire sounds like a crack as opposed to a bang....and this holds true regardless of distance (I've been shot at from anywhere from 100m to a little over 1000m)...is because the crack isn't actually the report of the weapon. What you are hearing are the bullets breaking the sound barrier as they go past you. If they shoot from far enough away you can actually make out the difference between the two...it sounds like a loud snap followed immediately by a more distant bang.

Just one small thing I noticed playing through the campaign....as a mech infantry guy in real life, I just want to point out that at no point would the PL ever ride in the PSG's track. Ever. Not a big thing...I mean it is no big deal reorganising the dismounts into more appropriote positions at the start, but...you know...just sayin.

The question isn't the changes in vertical positioning of the POV that calculates LOS, but the horizontal positioning when in the prone. While kneeling or standing, the intersection of the horizontal "altitude" plane used to calculate LOS intersects with the soldier model at more or less one point....whether that point is the head, chest, belt, rifle, whatever..it doesn't really matter...it's one point and so functions more or less correctly. The problem is with the prone positioning. When prone the plane used to calcutate LOS bisects the soldier model along the coronal plane putting the head, torso, waist, and feet all on the same altitude, and thus, eligable to project the LOS for that position, each of which drastically alters what the model is capable of "seeing". The question is, what part of the model actually "sees"? It is obviously not the head, as shown by the screen shots. I know that the original question on here was about exposure and not LOS, but the two issues are intristincly linked. To simplify the issue with the screenshot of soldiers on the hill into two questions, can those prone soldiers be shot? By the rules of bullet intersects model as I understand it, yes they can. Can they shoot back? No, they can't because their LOS is interuppted by the terrain, which is particularly odd since they'd be getting shot in the face. LOS needs to be mutual. Except in rare circumstances, if you can see me to engage me with a direct fire weapon, then I am also in a position to see and engage you also.

Yea...I did expect that the editor features would be limited to the game's default tileset in the initial releases...that isn't a problem. What I am having a slight difficulty accepting is that, as far as I can tell, there is no plan to expand the functionality of the editor in future patches...particularly when all the forseeable releases under this title are all using the exact same engine and the resources to create the new terrain tiles have already been allocated anyway. As much as I enjoy the default environment...it is very nice and fun to play around in...I would like the opportunity to stretch my own creative and tactical muscles and create/play scenarios that reach outside of syria...or iraq...or iran...or 'Whatarewedoinouthereinthemiddleofthedesertistan".

Now, I'm assuming, because of the completely different eras, that this is going to be a stand alone game? Now, that being the case, the important question is that if I have CM SF and CM N, will the terrain files be cross compatable with each other in the editor? I would hate to have the era I want my scenarios set in to be dictated entirely by the environment (EI, modern units are restricted to only a desert tileset and WW2 units restricted to only woodland tileset) I've already tried creating a woodland scenario in CMSF and the results were, lets just say, not what I expected. I flooded the area of terrain that was supposed to be lush woodland with pretty much every terrian set that I could find on there...tall grass...brush...various trees (in single, double, and triple)...and yet the first time I play tested it when I had a MG not only see, but successfully engage and inflict casualties, on a scout team through 800 meters of "thick woods", my suspension of disbelief kind of faltered.

Yes...gunners are always out. Our 1114's in Iraq couldn't button up...the turret door was either locked open, or just removed completely. At no point does the gunner ever leave his position...except when he's shot...then somone else gets into it. For the record though, 1st Recon didn't even have 1114's and neither did most of the invading force for that matter..I have a friend of mine that rolled into Baghdad in a HMMWV that didn't even have crew doors mounted on it. The only troops that had 1114's were upper echilon officers..."why?" do you ask? Because the models that come stock with armor also come stock with air conditioning. The newer electronics packages require it. That's it. The colonels and generals need A/C. Most of the invading force had 998's, 1025's, and 1097's.

The first thing is that an IFV is not a "transport". It does move troops around, but it is primarily a mobile weapons platform, which makes its role different from the old days of the 113. Unlike a light company, a mechanised infantry company doesn't actually have any organic dismounted MG crews. The Bradley fulfills the same support role that the gun team does during an infantry maneuver. In the defense, about the only difference is that a Bradley position would actually be two positions...a position to engage from and covered position to pull back to when the engagement is done.

Unfortunately my experience at air assault end with training and what little I took away from the Air Assault Operations section of my Reserve Component Long Range Recon Leaders Correspondence Course (No..I'm totaly not kidding with that either..I became a so-called "expert" on LRS Operations via correspondence course). Anyway, by the time I actually deployed for any real world operations I had moved on to a mechanised battalion. What really suprised me when I was looking up weights and payloads is how heavy the AAV's are. Where does all the weight come from? It's not from arms or armor that's for sure 'cause other than the fact that it can somewhat efficiently swim, as a combat vehicle, they really really suck. ..and happy 4th of July to you too! Thank you for serving also!

Not bad...I haven't played that scenario yet, so I'm not sure about the troops avaliable for Red. A blue force is going to tailor their level force based on what kind of resistance they are going to expect in completing their objectives. The only thing that I see is that maybe you are underestimating what an air assault force can actually do. Between Sea Knights, Sea Stallions, Blackhawks, etc., they would be able to air assault with pretty much anything except an Abrams or an AAV. Even the LAV-25 falls within the payload capacity of a Super Stallion. Back in 2000 I took part in a training event where we air assaulted the entire brigade and we pretty much took everything except the kitchen sink by helicopter..HMMWVs, MTVs, artillery, you name it. As it concerns assets they could get into the fight, your blue force wouldn't really be constrained too much from a technical perspective as they would be self-limiting based on mission criteria. SD Smack - lol...My company was based out of Camp Fallujah from 06 to 07, and the rest of my battalion was based out of TQ, so those TQ aircraft were actually the ones we were calling in.

Well..in Iraq the Army may not allow their Chinooks to fly during the day, but I do know that Sea Knights can and do go out during day time. We've called in Air Medivac in the middle of the day before and like 10 minutes later a Sea Knight and 2 Super Cobras will be on station looking for the LZ. It's not completely unheard of to fly into a contested area...just now they bring their own CAS with them all the time instead of trusting our judgemend on whether they'll need armed escort or not.

Yea, I saw that....the only problem I'm having is that, really, the only light vehicles avaliable to red are in the technicals unit and unless the vehicle is destroyed they are all manned by default and I can't figure out how to delete the crew. I the context of my map, I have a motor pool are on the camp that I would like to populate with various empty vehicles that could be manned and operated at some point during the mission, and inside there I also have a building with a couple attached shelter objects surrounded by various thing like supply pallets, drums, and tires...basically to simulate a maintenence area and what I wanted to do was throw an empty immobile vehicle under one of the shelters as like an additional environment object for that little scene...like it is broken and was in the process of undergoing repairs when the mission occured.

lol...I'm not sure if it would even be a decently playable map. It's the first map I've tried and I was essentially just building it to get a feel for the editor. I took my topo map of the Camp Ripley National Guard center here in Minnesota and mapped out the 4 square clicks around one of the POW Camp training sites. Only dissapointed about a few things...there is no water terrain feature...no option for rivers or lakes in the base game...at least none that I can find. So, I just used the marsh tile for everything. Environment objects are pretty limited...I was hoping to find like a checkpoint gate or even just a stop sign. I can't figure out how to place an empty vehicle object...like if I just wanted an immobile abandoned truck. It's about 50/50 open terrain and woodland...

I'll second that..

Windows 7 But anyway, now that I know why it dissapeared, I'm good now. Thanks all!

Whew! I think I found it! Don't know how it got moved to some obscure hidden folder in the Windows directory, but whatever...I'm pretty sure that is is. *crosses fingers*

Yup...tried it. Searched the entire hard drive...and my external harddrive. Not there.

I spent 6 hours working on a map yesterday...saved it about every hour...I put 2 hours alone into a POW camp and it was tight...I had this thing all the way down to the smalled details.. Turned on my computer today to work a little more on it....file is gone. Just not there...undelete can't even find it, like it never existed. Wow...this is like a kick in the junk. How? I made it a point to save this thing regularly..and it was there..I turned the program off to go to dinner last night and fired it up again when I got back and it loaded fine then. Aaaaarrrrrgh! *sigh* Sorry...I'm just venting. Welp...time to start over. This time I'm saving it my hard drive, my external hardrive, and a flash drive that I'm going to unplug every time I back up the file.

For a knock and search maybe....yea, my platoon searched entire neighborhoods too when we had all day to do it and enemy contact was minimal...but the scenario being played is during the initial invasion of the country and enemy contact is not only certian, but it is with elite members of the enemy force. As an example, the initial push into Fallujah in 2004 was with 6 battalions, not counting the cordon force or CSS...and Fallujah isn't that big...around 9 or 10 square kilometers. I could map the entire city in CMSF and still have some room to spare....I'd be pushing the limits of what it can handle, but I could do it...I can't even imagine what 6 battalions in game would look like, but I think it would be insane.

Oh absolutely...simulation style games are always going to be stuck trying to find that balance between what is realistic and what people actually want to play. It is pretty cool that the engine could, in theory, be able to run a scenario like that. I did not know that before. I guess it all comes down to what kind of overall experience someone is looking to create. A person making a scenario for their buddies to have fun with on the internet is going to approach it differently than a hardcore sim guy who is going to be slightly different from someone looking to create a scenario to use as a training aid at like a National Guard Drill or something. I just got it a day or two ago, so I'm still learning the intricacies of the software, but the more I find out about it the more impressed I am with the fliexibility it has.

Yea, I kinda figured it was something along those lines. I'm not knockin it too much..it's fun as hell regardless...and I understand there are trade offs. I mean, at that density, an urban combat scenario will be won or lost on tactics at a near micro-terrain level...down to individual meters or less. If that level of precision could be accurately modelled, I don't think it would get boring, even with just one building...but that would take a complete revamp of the engine and yadda yadda yadda which is not something that either I, nor particularly the maker, would want to do...and even if it was done, going the other direction when you do talk about a battalion or larger urban scenario, the amount of micromanaging needed would be sooooo time consuming. You could spend hours going through squad by squad analyzing, adjusting, planning, etc...before you could get one 60 second turn off. It's great as is...I just making comment that I thought it was kinda funny. My one squad had that entire building locked down in about 10 minutes. "Hellz yea...I got a squad of Rambos"