[Assaulting a building fierce and agille.]

.50 cal causes casualties, everything smaller will suppress your forces.

So the tactic mentioned at the beginning of this thread does not work now?

How to do it now?

Prepare the building with suppression fire, then stop the shooting and enter using "assault" command?

And Inside, during floor clearing, move just using "assault", do not use it with fire command?

[Assaulting a building fierce and agille.]

I am not sure, but I think its dangerous only with grenade launchers and more powerful guns?

[Assaulting a building fierce and agille.]

And another issue - RPGs. I do it nicely, Strikers moving, guns blazing, and suddenly a lone RPG fires from a house and destroy my IFV. And that house is under suppressive fire from all directions, I have to say.

[Assaulting a building fierce and agille.]

Hello.

I play this game from time to time, played some standalone battles and quick battles and now I am trying campaign. (I have only the basic version, patched to the latest version).

I read this article about storming the building, but my men are still dying doing so.

I park Strikers at the front, pepper the structure with their 0.5 and use assault order combined with "Target" order. But still, some of my soldiers are killed/wounded during entry.

I am struggling with the second mission now.

Any advice on this matter?

Thanks.

[Red vs. Blue balance]

Thats what I was worried of...

Thanks for answer nonetheless.

So... Where can one download some interesting scenarios to play with his buddies?

[Red vs. Blue balance]

Well,

maybe you misunderstood mi initial question:)

First thing is, I talked about Quick battles.

Second thing, its about how computer picks forces.

I have played several of those random generated battles until now, playing as US and Syrians. I have chosen a lot of different force type as Syria and the better the troops and their equipment, the better result, of course. So far I have the best results with Republican Guard and even better, Special Forces. But, only if I have given massive handicap to US, like 30 percent less troops, I could get major victory.

So I think the game does not create balanced forces in Quick battles scenarios.

In previous similar games, like all Combat missions, or Steel Panthers, all units are fiven a points value according to their effectivity (quality and equipment). So force which is inferior in those areas would be substantially larger to offset it. But I think the random generator here picks forces only according to organisation structure.

example: If I choose "small" battle, there would be something similar to two platoons to fight. So on one side there will be 6 BMPs 2 with infantry (regulars) and on the other side there will be 8 Bradleys with some support (veterans) fair fight? I think not...

So mi opinion is, the game does not create balanced random scenarios.

Thats problem vs. computer, but even worse vs. human, who is usually better than comp. If I want to play with somebody else, the Red side will be screwed, without using handicap for Blue.

My question is how do you solve this issue.

[Red vs. Blue balance]

Thats true. Can I change these conditions somehow in Quick battles?

[Red vs. Blue balance]

Hello!

I just started playing this game so I am very inexperienced with it, but:

when playing quick battles, it is much more easy to play as US

I tried several battles as syrian army or unconventionals and the best result I managed was draw. When playing as US in such scenarios, I usually won and won without too much effort. I of course agree that US army is superior, but it should be properly reflected by number of troops available. I think syrians get too low number of units, if we take into consideration their inferior quality.

Any ideas on this subject? I noticed there is a possibility to give handicap to "blue" side, maybe thats the way?