LUCASWILLEN05

yes, I know the Stryker has advantages as well as drawbacks. As an armoured vehicle you must agree tat the armoured protection is weaker than may be desirable. Which is the price that you pay for deployability. I am sure Stryker is a great vehicle for getting troops to and around the battlefield. However I don't think you would want to be up against a MBT in one. So, once on the battlefield dismounting could be the healthiest thing to do, ideally with all the Javelin ATGMs and LAWs you can can carry. PS I wasn't saying anything positive about the M113 in the modern environment. Wha I actually said was hat I might as well be using one1 hat is in consideration of he issues with Stryker, in particular the lack of an ATGM capability. While that s not a probem against insurgents you would agree it is an issue on high intensity armoured battlefelds. Even when you go into a lower tech environment you will agree you are likely to come up against tanks even if it is just a T55 or T62. Islamic state has (or had) a fair number of those :-) Sure, in that environment airpowe and Apache gunships can go after enemy tanks almost with impunity, No, my issue with Stryker in its' current form is on the high tech high intensity armoured battlefield such as the one we see in CMBS Like I said, personally I don't like the Stryker. I would much rather have Bradleys. However these come in the HBCT which are more difficult to deploy into theater. Perhaps if all Strykers were equipped with ATGM capability like the Bradleys this would at least enable them to fight tanks more effectively from covered positions on high intensity battlefields However, against a lightly equipped opponent such as insurgent types your Stryker is, I grant you, at least as good as Bradleys and, n that environment, perhaps on balance better. We still have airborne and airmobile capability. Arguably, with helicopters, you are in principle, going to be far more mobile on a tactical - operational level than the Stryker although the Stryker will enhance tactical mobility. Do you think it would be possible to develop a vehicle mounted Javelin (that top attack capability is a game changer) or is it more likely that TOW would be used? I think we both agree that Stryker does need an ATGM capability as standard even if we came to the same conclusion from different angles :-)

I would not buy this myself. No interested in the period. But I would buy a Combat Mission War on Terror covering similar actions (present or future with modern day forces including Western intervention forces, Mali is an example

Stryker might be ok against insurgents. However on a high intensity, high tech battelfield it leaves much to be desired. n fact one might as well be equipped with the old M113 or even trucks :-) The best thing for the infantry to do is get out of their Strykers in a safe location as soon as possibe and proceed on foot with all the AT equipment they can carry.

In reality real soldiers are likely to be far more careful with their flesh and blood bodies than we are likely to b with our pixelated images:-) That said you do identify more of the correct issues, Maybe he OP was using a poorly trained unit with low morale. Which could be much more common during the winter of 1944 - 5 on both sides.

At this stage I do not think we can go further without fuller details such as the level of suppression, state of morale, relevant enemy positions and how close these were to the unit under debate. I don;t feel there is anything anyone could usefully add without such information. Otherwise we can't analyse but only guess what might have happened to cause something like this. Without such details it might be best to call a halt

In the absence of information in regard of what the actual circumstances were one must make certain assumptions regardng the actual circumstances were. As you say not providing such information is unhelpful. Regarding your example, well if the unit panicked maybe they would still vacate their trenches and run. If howver a unit does not panic maybe it is worth you trying to top them, Success is not guarunteed. If however heir moral sate is such that you cannot control thm then there is really nothing you can do bu let the go :-( I tnd not to worry oo much about wha happens to individual squads

Sadly I am far to busy with real life course work at the moment :-(. However I know what you mean regarding those overpasses. of the biggest One of the biggest issues with SF

Not in all. In this case it was a set of rules entitled Free Fire Zone which are now long out of print

I wouldn't consider it gamey against human or computer. With area fire you are more likely to be trying to suppress anyone there. While you might hit someone at is a bonus. In fact you are more likely to increase he suppression level of any enemy in the targeted area and hopefully reduce he accuracy of their return fire The cost is that you will be using up ammo. You won't however know the exact you had, nor should you. Hope that helped

On balance I personally regard it as good if a unit close to the enemy and under heavy fire bugs out in the event it breaks evn if the unit is under heavy fire. In such circumstances those guys would probably want to get out of there o somewhere a bit safer. In a tabletop miniatures game we might have a mechanism for panic. I remember one set of Vietnam rules I played years ago. When a unit panicked you rolled a six sided dice with results someting like this: 1 - 2 Panic Fire. Unit shoots with a very hefty negative modifier at nearest enemy 3 - 4 Panic Freeze Unit remains in position and does nothing at all until rallied 5 - 6 Panic Run. Unit runs away from enemy to nearest alternative cover Maybe there is a similar mechanic at work now in 4.0

Maybe scale the scenarios down or just do part of the action.There are some very good texts such as Take Down (Jim Lacey), On Point (Franks) which I suspect you will be aware of. An action based on one of the engagements fought during he battle for Objective Peach. Objective Saints the fight for Baghdad International Airport for example might make good scenarios bu we probably have to accept the game might only portray a small part of these battles. Perhaps just a Company Commander's view. Maybe something like the whole of one of these battles might be gameable if approached as a campaign game?

Mali would make for some interesting gaming

http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Striker_Vehicle_Controversy Imust admit to a personal bias here, I don't like the Stryker and haven't since CMSF. All your fault BF :-)

Personally I have not seen a great deal of bolting out into the open though I have only installed 4.0 on CMBS at the moment. Maybe you have just been unlucky? Or maybe, as I suggested earlier maybe they have changed the program so that troops with a high level of suppression are ,more likey to bug out My advice to you. net time you see somethig like the issue you describe is to take a look at the unit morale state and at the level of suppression (that little yellow triangle I have mentioned several times. What I suspect you might find is that the suppression level will be high and morale state will be bad. These two factors combined might explain why the bug out you are seeing occurs

Fair enough to want BF to provide some reasoning for he change. However, you yourself do admit the squad was as you say "pretty beaten up" From that I would infer that morale and suppression was pretty bad. Maybe the squad in fact panicked. When people panic in dangerous situations i is not unknown for hem to do stupid things that get them killed. Such people are not in a state of mind to do he sensible thing - in that particular case to remain in he cover of that church. They just panicked and wanted to get out of there. What do you think is the psychological state most likely to get you killed in a fire or a stampede, You panic, make the wrong choice and you probably die https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/extreme-fear/201011/caught-in-stampede-what-would-you-do Going back to what I said n an earlier post in situations like this these particular soldiers are no longer under your control and will act according to their perceptions of events around them. Not your perception as he overall battlegroup commander. OK so those guys panicked and got killed. That, and I do not wish to be callous, means a few more sad letters to write. Right now however you have a battle to win. I think you are over obsessing about one incident here. Now a unit that panics might actually run away more often whereas before they might have cowered in place. I can live with that even of they do something dumb in a blind panic and that gets them killed That can be what happens sometimes and again what they actually do might well depend on other circumstances or even chance:-)

Unless what they are doing is bugging out. One of two things might be happening here. One is that the squad panics and they just want to get the hell out of here. The other possibility is that the squad leader ordered them to bug out. Either way the squad s not acting under your control a this point. This may mean they are not dong what you consider to be the sensible thing. Instead they are acting as they see fit according to their interpretation of the situation, not yours! Is that annoying? Yes.But perhaps not necessarily unrealistic depending on what else might be going on. Whatever cover the squad might be in how close is the enemy? How much fire are hey putting down range? How suppressed is the target unit (look at that little triangle. It is questions like this that also need to be carefully considered.

Maybe this could be because he unit in question is too close to the enemy and are thus under much more accurate fire. Remember firepower does not just kill. It suppresses - has a morale effect and maybe the impact on morale is greater under heavy close range small arms fire - which will tend o be moe accurate. Even if the fire does not kill or wound it still is going to have a significant psychological impact.Take a look at that little suppression triangle. Maybe that is why the squad is bugging out

Maybe morale responses of infantry are "softer" in 4.0. Maybe it has gone too far for you to have an enjoyable game now that you are is able to use your old tactics as effectively as you once did. Maybe however he results are more realistic - if you do something that would b dumb in the real world you pay some of the real world costs of your decisions except obviously nobody dies and there are no real world widows and orphans. Perhaps, instead of criticizing 4.0 we need to consider and adapt our tactics, I am not saying there is a difference. Rather hat this difference might actually be a good thing in that it forces us to consider better tactics based on those of the real world. Should we even have put our squad in the position where i is perhaps unsupported by other units on overwatch? Should we instead have detached a scout team from that squad and sent hem to recon possible enemy positions while keeping the rest of the squad back in cover. Maybe we need to be putting greater emphasis on issues like this as a real squad or platoon leader might have to. If 4.0 forces us to think more along lines like that then perhaps that s no bad thing. If infantry are "softer" and act more like a real unit under particularly negative his could actually be a closer simulation of reality - in which case maybe the tactics we have been using are unrealistic, not the simulation..If that is the case then try different tactics more like those a real world commander might employ.Let the game/simulation teach you.Just a thought :-)

Some might find his interesting though personally would consider this title as a lower priority myself being more interestd near future high tech conflct

In addition to those issues you have correctly listed here is also the potential of an India - Pakistan War, trouble in Tibet, war with Vietnam (which is where the Spratley and Paracel Islands come in) Though a land war against the West may be further down the priorities for Beijing wars on China's borders will be much further up the list

That is how you understand my thinking. Historically we have had periods where we have had limited wars before. For example the Spanish War of Succession or the Cold War/Post Cold War era 1945 - present. What I am saying is, based on History periods of limited war are followed by periods of large scale warfare. Western forces have been cut back dramatically over the last couple of decades. China and Russia however have been doing the opposite. Expanding and/or modernizing. Your view is overly Western centric. In reality it is Western militaries who my not be ready for a war like this. just as British, French and US forces were not ready for World War 2. I think you may be drawing some of the wrong historical lessons here You do however seem to agree with me that the geopolitical situation can change. However, taken WW1 as an analogy I am thinking we are in a 1900s (1905 - 1914) position. You are thinking in terms of a position similar to the 1870s/1880s. Either of us could be correct on this one However your reasoning in regard to current Chinese thinking on Korea makes sense. However it i possible that the situation in North Korea my change suddenly and swiftly.In those circumstances everybody will be trying to catch up

Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL. Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in the press http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10808719/China-plans-for-North-Korean-regime-collapse-leaked.html However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US

Could you please clarify what you mean when using the acronym TEL. Regarding a refugee and humanitarian crisis in the event of a North Korean collapse/civil war this is considered to be a highly probable scenario Chinese contingency plans have been reported in the press http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10808719/China-plans-for-North-Korean-regime-collapse-leaked.html However a Chinese military move int a North Korea where a civl war has broken out is a plausible developmentSupposing all this were to happen wih the US and China at war over the South China ea. Th South Koreans, like the Chinese have advanced nto North Korea for similar reasons to China bu US forces beig eeded elsewhere have not gon with them. The US might still provide logistical support. For whatever reason, say a mistake or miscalcul;ation by local commanders, South Korean and Chinese forces class and the PLA pours south. Given what is going on elsewhre in the region in this sceario this would be a terrible situation for the US

I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do. Oh and by the way I said multiple times that any invasion of China would be years into the war. Not at the outswet. Your "logic" is like arguing the Allies could have implemented D Day in 1940. They did not and could not. However, what they could and did do was send an expeditionary force to Norway, in the British case to France. There were also expeditionary operations to Syria, Italian East Africa, and Madagascar. In the earl war phase of RoF similar US operations can be mounted, for example to India. A Dieppe style raid on the Chinese coast might even be considered at some point though unless there are very good reasons to the contrary that job might be best done using Cruise Missiles. Smaller Commando style raids anywhere along the coasts of Chinese occupied Asia involving perhaps platoon or company size unit With war breaking out in 2021 a massive invasion of China won't happen until at least 2024 or 2025. Read my posts more carefully in future.

I am not in the business of making threats I am not prepared to carry out. In the light of your post I have done exactly what I said I would do.