Sakai007

Dan, Damian, Mikey, three great points. If the physics were a dead match, and ALL armor values exact matches to real life, all weapons to classified real world specs, we wouldn't be playing it at all, unless we were all in the service together But, that being said, it doesn't mean that what works in the real world wont work in game. The engagement distances are a bit on the small side, but the only place that is a handicap is with long range tank battles and ATGMs being used to their maximum capability. Infantry fighting is still done much as it always has since the advent of the machine gun, under 400 meters (for the most part, I can almost feel the heat from the flames now lolololol, j/k) Damain's thoughts are inspiring, and I am getting that CM itch just writing this (or its from that escort hmmmm......) Mikey, you really hit the nail on the head with that comment. I can't comment on the British Forces module, since I don't have it, but the scenarios for Marines were a touch tougher and well thought out then the base game, and the scenarios with NATO make me pull my hair out. I enjoy the missions, don't get me wrong, but sometimes I just love the sandbox ability the mission editor gives, being able to play with accurately modeled high tech toys that I love in terrain of my choosing is one of the main reasons I play CM at all. I have built more missions then I can count just to mess around with different combinations and see what the outcome will be. Maybe I will release a few since most of them are just for fun, every now and again I make one that is actually, genuinely fun.

Welcome Adam! I am a long time CM player but a fairly new poster here, and a little family it is, complete with drunks, scandal, and the occasional gaming comment, or is that just me........

LoL, I do like Infantry heavy scenarios, but I think I've been bitten by the Armor bug, same but different if you know what I mean. And of the manuals, can't be any worse the Geraldo giving our battle plan to invade Iraq on national television. I would beat that man if I had the chance, a good old fashion kind of beatin, out behind the shed style.

I find the T-90 to be less survivable then some of it's older counter parts. The gun and ATGMs are great but there are times when I think I am better off with well upgraded T-72s. As for IFVs like the Brad and Marder, I know they exist to carry infantry into battle and should be doing so out of sight of the enemy, but how can I support the dis-mounts without risking the IFV to lethal AT fire? Granted working in teams is key, but is there a way to lessen the chance of taking casualties? I am always conscious of the dollar amount I would be spending if the battle were in real life, man those Javs will run up a bill

gibsonm, brilliant! Those vids are idiot proof, reminds me of presentations the good ole US Army would show us, breaks it right down. I think I have the idea, same basic concepts of not silhouetting on hill tops, using terrain features to mask movement. And the term "on" had me thinking of parking right on a hill, of course this goes against all tactical sense. Using said hill as a hull down position. And I also tend to use tanks as "crap magnets", but they will still work as this function when hull down, just harder to kill with non top attack weapons. Very, Very, Very helpful guys, thanks so much, this turned into a great discussion.

I was an infantryman so I have a real grasp of the ideas of over watch, bounding over watch, all pretty much part of Fire & Maneuver which has been utilized since the second world war. The same for an infantry platoon that uses suppression fire from the MG squad as the rifle squads leap frog, supporting while stationary, with the use of smoke when possible. The good old, "Im up, He sees me, Im down" rinse, wash, repeat. When using the US Army in CMSF I get more armor kills with Javs then Tanks since the original role of the tank is to support infantry, not kill other tanks, thats what AT platoons are for. This is the way I try to use my armor. I will most certainly be using them in pairs now that I have learned to do so. And attempt to maneuver them as I do my troops, mutually supporting. And this gives me new thought on AT platoons, using them to over watch likely avenues of approach when I am moving my armor. Any critiques to this strategy?

A chore it is. I have finally come to blows in a CMAK PBEM I have going. Its been a week of trading turns and just today the first shots fired, but wasn't it worth the wait! I am still pacing the house trying to figure out what his strategy is, and what mine will be, great stuff!

LoL, yes, I think you are correct. I just finished a QB in which I lost three 2A6Ms on contact with a full platoon of T-72 TURMs. I got six of them but it was as you said, sitting static and dueling. The one remaining 2A4 was hidden behind some forest and went un-noticed. A large number of BMPs were killed by combination of Infantry AT and the tanks but more were rushing my positions. Using my 2A4 in the only way I could think of, close range ambush, I destroyed three of the remaining T-72s and two BMPs. If I had used better tactics with the whole force, I would have wiped the enemy out. I am thinking I just have the wrong approach to modern tank warfare. I just cant seem to figure out how to withdraw my assets after first contact without making myself an easier target. Any tips or advice would be appreciated.

Ok, I have had CMSF for a while now, and have played the crap out of US vs. Syria, to the point that I started to play Red vs. Red so it would be a fair fight. Now with NATO, I feel that the Syrians out match me at times and at others it close to even. I have lost I don't know how many Leopards to T-72 (granted, the upgraded 72s but still). It is partly due to the bad habit of being able to put my Abrams anywhere and have it survive 9 out of 10 times, but I love playing Allied vs. Germany in CMx1, I do know a little about positioning, Hull down, maneuver, cover, concealment, etc. I am curious is if this is a result of the Leopard armor not being up to Abrams standards (2A6M is the model in question), were the Syrian tanks up-gunned, or do I just suck.

Hey folks, I have just broken my PBEM cherry. I am currently involved with a CMAK game going H2H, Sidi Redez I think, good stuff but no infantry, bummer for me. The time I spent at Ft. Benning taught me many things that I use in all CM versions all the time, I love the way this series plays. Anyways, I have CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, and CMSF/Marines/NATO if anyone is up for some H2H in any of these, I would be happy to oblige. Stryker07@yahoo.com

With the Fennick recon version of the German Army there is the same situation, PzF Laucher and rounds but no loading ability and a perm crew. What I do is give the crew the acquire command. The ammo doesn't disappear from the pic listing but does from the acquire listing and when the crew dismounts, they have their weapons. I do this often, I use the four Fennick team to fly ahead to a location, dismount the troops with launchers and rockets and set an ambush for what ever is coming my way.

There, I just came out and said it, I love NATO, the module that is. I must say, that of the modules I own (Marines, NATO) and what I have read is included with Brit, NATO beats them in terms of content hands down. I am curious to know if future m!odules for all CM series games will have more on the NATO side of content? At any rate, the top rate work and attention to detail have put BF squarely back on my gaming radar and will be much more likely to purchase future products in the CM franchise. The Weisel is my favorite so far, reminds me of the Sdk 222 recon cars from WWII mounting the 20mm cannon, which may be my favorite unit from CM1. Again, really great job guys, can't wait for the next effort

I am interested in playing some CMBB as well. I can do at least a turn a day, probably more since CMBB doesn't interfere with baby raising as much as say IL2 w/X52 HOTAS does, lol. PM me!

I find myself using wego much more often then I thought I would when I bought the game. Mostly for large scenarios and my beloved red vs red. The T-72 won't take the beating an M1 will, and I need to be careful when engaging the enemy. Although I think I will try using the pause function in real time, as I also hate walking my troops into an ambush. Just yesterday I was advancing a company on syrian airborne mech infantry supported by a platoon of T-72M(Early). As I crested a hill with the T-72 and started down the other side, an enemy T-55 emerges from a smoke screen and lands a single round on the top of my tanks turret, SMOKED!!! I watched it all happen in the replay, three times. It was painful, really, even if that T-55 didn't live long after (killed by a BMP-2 73mm cannon, go figure) Just an example, and even though this moment killed me, it's what keeps me coming back for more!!!

I would buy a 1955 NATO vs WP Combat Mission module. I play QB's like that all the time in WinSPMBT. It is a time of better then WWII equipment, but only slightly. Great game play there.

For me, the real joy of CMSF is the mission editor and Red vs. Red scenarios. I find them the most fun since there is no real advantage to either side. I like to use the Syrian Army and Airborne/SF units against large numbers of irregulars to simulate something close to todays INA and ANA forces against the Taliban and other insurgent forces. It really puts a lump in your throat when your T-72 has to take on T-62's and static T-55/54B and you know you may not win the battle through superior firepower, tactics are a must. Although, the T-90 and super upgraded T-72 can wreck and M1 in certain conditions, the M1 normally gets the best of the encounter. And the well trained, motivated, and supported US Army and US Marine Corps soldier is way more then a match for his adversaries. The RvR really gets my heart pumping, so it's pretty much all I play now, except when I really want to play with the US uber toys to get the frustration RvR can bring on out of my system.

Thx for the link, wasn't aware there were rule sets for board games out there that were free to the public, amazing stuff, no some one around here is gonna have to learn to play so I can smack them around! lol

With CMBO I just changed the compatibility to run with WinXP SP2 and all is well. I use a lap top so I was worried but everything worked out ok.

Tanks were originally designed to kill strong points in an enemy's line and punch through those same said lines for friendly forces to flood through and attack the enemy from his side and rear flanks or to get into the enemy's rear area and disrupt communications, logistics, and command and control. This was the idea when they were created in WWI. This is the role they still held in WWII. A great example of this philosophy is the M4 Sherman. It's 75mm gun was not designed to kill other tanks, it was to kill infantry and destroy machine gun nests. In fact, the tank maintained this role all through the war. The Germans built Stug assault guns and JagdPanzer IV tank destroyers with the destruction of enemy tanks in mind. Blitzkreig warfare was built on the concept of using tanks to punch through a defensive line to make a hole for mechanized infantry to pour through and consolidate on the tanks break through. All the while leg infantry would encircle and destroy the units left behind by the armored advance. In Korea they were employed in a similar role. In Vietnam, tanks were once again called on mainly to fight infantry. The shock and awe factor that a tank brings to the battlefield can not be underestimated. During the cold war, thinking changed along with the times. The Soviets were of the mindset of fighting an offensive war, overrunning NATO forces and blitzing to the coast. Their tanks were designed according to this doctrine, being in a more conventional role to start. NATO realized that they couldn't match the hordes of armor the Soviets would send, so they focused on killing as many tanks as quickly as they could with their superior technology. Systems such as the Abrams, Leopard, and Challenger were designed to kill Soviet tanks as quickly as possible. As were systems such as the AH-64 Apache with the AGM-114 Hellfire missile and the A-10 Thunderbolt II and its Avenger 30mm cannon and the AGM-65 Maverick. This, along with very accurate and fast responding artillery were the back bone of NATO's defense of Europe. The Soviets, seeing that their numerical edge was being whittled down by NATO technology designed highly effective ATGM systems that could be mounted on almost anything. From being mounted on BRDMs, above the BMPs main gun, and fired out of the main gun of their main battle tanks. These weapons were to give Warsaw Pact forces a first shot capability over their NATO counterparts to destroy the superior but less numerous NATO MBTs. Then the cold war ended and the bubble burst. The Gulf War showed how devastating modern NATO MBTs were against WP equipment, but I don't personally feel that it was an accurate portrayal, considering most of the Iraqi tanks were not of the newest model and were export models at that. Their crews were not trained to a Soviet standard, having only fought against similarly equipped and trained enemy's or insurgent type scenarios. Then, in 2003, war again came to the middle east. The ground war was not as short and more costly, but had the same result. But as a result the evolution of the tank came full circle, as they were once again called on the intimidate the enemy and blast well entrenched infantry (insurgents) from their positions. As I see it, not only are MBTs not past their prime, but will continue to be a crucial part of any military force that wishes to take the fight to their enemy. Even in CMSF this is visible. My favorite tool for getting a pesky MG crew to leave the safety of their fortified building is with the main gun of an M1A2 Abrams. It is a real morale killer to have an entire building brought down around you. I only wish that CMSF modeled the large brown stains that appear in the trousers of anyone who has the barrel of an MBT's main gun pointed at them in anger!

The invasion of the lobstahs starts here in Maine! But fear not, we know what to do with unruly lobsters, and the melted butter and claw crackers are on in a QRF, we will be defended!!!

Hey all, thank you so much for posting these links. I love nothing more then free reading material, especially if it's about the Afghan war, way to under-documented in my corner of America, +5!!! I intend to go and build some CM:SF scenarios using these battles as an example right away!