black_prince

Can't say that I've noticed this but there was a big gap where I was just playing CMBN before I went back to Shock Force when the patch came out. In fact, IIRC, one of the fixes in the patch was to stop ATGMs slamming into the ground well short of their targets when they shouldn't have been, so if anything they should be more effective. What I can say though is that after playing a good bit of CMBN I am much better at placing my tanks in hull down positions. Could it be this that's leading you to take fewer tank casualties? On the other hand, I don't think that you can really draw any conclusions from one game.

Just downloaded this, seems like a great scenario, unfortunately, my laptop is struggling a bit with running it. This scenario is actually similar in premise to one I started building a while ago and have left 'on ice' although the map and friendly force composition is very different. I'll see if I can try and do a bit of maintenance on my computer, fiddle with settings etc.. and give it another go as it seems well worth playing.

Move your infantry up close to one of the bunker's blind sides, they should attack with grenades, if not give them, a target command on the bunker. As suggested above, bazooka rounds also work well.

I agree that people's views shouldn't be ignored (so long as they are politely presented) but I would suggest that one of the reasons that these threads tend to occur fairly regularly is that people don't make much of an effort to look up what has already been discussed. Topics such as the effectiveness of artillery, buildings as cover and tank accuracy have all been discussed quite extensively and to my mind, addressed quite satisfactorily for the most part. It's true there are things which could do with being improved and tweaked but it is a bit irritating to hear about the same tired old topics again and again because some people's first instinct is to launch into a rant when things don't match up with their pre-concieved notions of how they should be rather than reflecting on wether their assumptions were correct or not.

Agreed, the differences would have been pretty minimal and I realise that nothing is really going to be changed now but it would have been nice if this was used instead of the Bren to begin with.

Personally, I have no objection to seeing a 'cover armour' command, hopefully we'll see one in the future. However, I don't think the situation as it currently stands is as problematic as you suggest. I don't want my infantrymen to refrain from firing at exposed tank crewmembers by default. Forcing a tank to button up significantly reduces its spotting abilities. If you want your guys to wait until they can make a faust shot then you give them a target arc to prevent them firing until the target is within Pzfaust range. Even if they open fire with rifles or SMGs first, at ranges of 30m and less there is a very high probability that they will take out the TC, resulting in the tank becoming temporarily supressed and giving you plenty of time to take a faust shot. The only problem this may cause is that the tank may reverse out of range of your Pzfaust before your guys can get a shot off with it. You can solve that easily enough though by setting the target arc to say, 25m instead of 30.

I've had the experience of small arms fire aimed at crew members give away the position of my AT team as well but I've only noticed this when the PzFaust is out of range. Generally I find that in close country panzerfausts are extremely deadly so long as the teams are positioned sensibly, target arcs help too. In fact, one of the most satisfying things in CMBN for me is sneaking a little PzFaust team through long grass or woods before popping them up and slamming a Sherman up close. Of course, I paly in RT so I don't know how easy this is in WEGO. I've never seen one of my teams taken out by their own faust or the secondary explosion texplosion as the fausts tend be fairly accurate even at their maximum range of 30 metres. My only real gripe is that there never seems to be enough of them.

The main difference would be more frequent re-loads due to a 20 round magazine on the ZB series vs 30 round on the Bren, the ammo used and also some differences in appearance.

Thanks for that LLF, pretty much agree with what you say above as well. Coming back to Iran, the EU has now agreed in principal to embargo Iranian oil. Iran imports only a fraction of its oil to Europe although not a completely insignificant fraction (about 15% or 20% I believe), the major European customers being Greece and Italy. Iran's response? They say they will 'work around' the embargo. Still defiant, granted but compare that with: "If they impose sanctions on Iran's oil exports, then even one drop of oil cannot flow from the strait of Hormuz," So far it looks as though Iran's bluff has been well and truly called and what everyone has been saying in this thread regarding the likelyhood of Iran taking action to close the straits has been vindicated.

To be honest, I think that your giving a bit too much credit to Osama. I would put the cost of the war on terror way down the list of factors which caused the current economic crisis. Ahead of them I would put inadequate regulation of the financial sector, misconcieved government interference in the housing sector (Freddie and Fannie), China's currency policy, the Euro etc.... etc..... I don't know the exact percentage of government spending the war on terror has made up in the US over the last decade but certainly in Europe it has been a negligable part and yet many European countries are not in a better position than the US when it comes to soveriegn debt. In terms of the long term relative decline of the West I would go so far as saying that Al-Qaeda is more accurately described as a symptom than a cause. Economy wise, Iran is certainly not in any position of advantage. Inflation and unemployment are rampant and the exchange value of the Riyal is at record lows, so much so that the government has imposed draconian exchange controls. The anouncement of sanctions aimed at Iran's central bank by the US almost instantly caused the Riyal to lose 10% against the Dollar. Personally, the more they rant, the more I'm convinced they don't want to go to war (at least for the time being). Having said that, there is always the danger of people coming to believe their own propaganda.

Very informative source, just finished reading the Naval forces section. While I've read alot of stuff online regarding Iran's maritime oob, this report really helped me to get a better understanding of what the likely roles and capabilities of the Iranian assets are. I'd also never heard of the Khalij Fars ASBM before, niether had I realised just how many AShM and torpedo armed speedboats Iran possesed. There are a few questions that the report raised in my mind though: 1. Where are Iranian Naval operations typically commanded from? Are these hardened/underground facilities? 2. What kind of comms fit are the armed speedboats likely to possess and how good is radio discipline amongst IRGN/Iranian Navy? 3. To what extent are Iran's Revolutionary Guard junior officers authorised and trained to take independent action. 4. Is Iran likely to have sufficient stocks of Anti-ship missiles to simultaneuosly equip its plethora of surface vessels and shore batteries? 5. What portion of Iran's naval forces are kept at heightened readiness and does Iran keep one or more of its Kilo class boats on patrol in case of sudden attack? Any answers, specualtion, educated guesses or wags with respect to the above would be very much appreciated. P.S. Happy 2012!

Many thanks for the link to the report Erwin. Well, so far all the bravado doesn't seem to have done alot to the oil price. However, I have noted two big defence deals with the UAE and Saudi have just been anounced-the Saudi one in particular is massive with with a further 84 F-15s on order. Its seems the net beneficiaries of all this anxiety over the strait are western defence industries.

Given that both Pakistan and Iran both use the G3 and were supplying various factions of the Muj at the time I would be more surprised if they did not posess significant numbers of G3s. However, I think the Lee-Enfield would probably have been more commonly used in a sniping role. In fact, a scoped Lee-Enfield is used by Mujahideen snipers in game but the G3 and SVDs seem to be more common ( the Lee-Enfield is only used by snipers when the equipment quality is set to low). I've always felt that there were a few things that were missing from the arsenal of the Mujahideen that should have been included and others that shouldn't be there. For example, I think an error was made when including the Bren gun. From what I've read the weapon the Mujahideen were actually using was the ZB26. I think they may have conflated the ZB26, the Bren and the Sten gun which apparently was used by the Mujahideen as it was easily and cheaply manufactured by Pakistani gunsmiths.

Erwin's comment got me thinking about the timing in economic terms. At the risk of sounding overly sanguine I started thinking that this might not actually be the worst time for a 'Hormuz conflict' from an economic point of view. Consider the following. There could never be a good time for a spike in the price of oil. However, if you are going to experience an increase in oil prices, isn't it better to have them when global demand is relatively weak rather than have them spike from an already high floor? What's more, a spike in oil prices will no doubt increase the rate of inflation. As governments tend to lend at fixed interest rates, increased inflation will have the effect of eroding the value of our outstanding debts. Of course, a higher oil price and increased inflation will also snuff out whatever anaemic economic growth that may currently exist in the West. Unemployment will increase. Tax receipts will fall and the welfare bill will increase. The solvency of many countries will be put in doubt as bond yields rise. This though, is where the cash rich gulf countries such as Kuwait, Qatar and Saudi step in. Dependant on the US for the defence of their commerce, the gulf countries could perhaps be persuaded to assuage the situation by participating in bond purchases with heavily discounted yields or by providing large, very long term, loans. Even China might be persuaded to assist in this way when faced with being deprived of its vital energy imports. Of course, all of this would likely take place against a background of great social unrest as the already painful economic circumstances became more painful still and inflation reduced the living standards of even those in employment. Energy rationing might also be enforced adding to the sense of misery. Once again however, the problem provides its own solution. The finger of blame could be pointed squarely at Iran and the anger of the masses would take on a more nationalistic flavour. I am not for a moment suggesting the above scenario would be in any way desirable. I am merely trying to envisage the way that such a situation may unfold. Personally, I am still sceptical that Iran would attempt to block the strait. Nonetheless, the possibility exists and the policy makers really need to balance scenarios such as the one above against the desire to halt Iran's nuclear programme.

http://belfercenter.ksg.harvard.edu/publication/18409/closing_time.html There you go.

Even in the event of a strike I doubt the Iranians would attempt to close the Strait of Hormuz completely for all their bluster. China is massively dependant on Middle Eastern oil and is a major trading partner of Iran's. One of the reasons the diplomatic efforts against Iran's nuclear programme have had so little effect is a lack of support for strong sanctions from China and Russia. Closing the Strait of Hormuz would leave Iran completely isolated in diplomatic terms. In such a scenario Iran probably would be able to close the straits for a limited period of time using mines, shore launched ASMs, fast attack boats and miniature submarines. However, the net result would be the effective destruction of the Iranian Navy and Air force and a massive degradation of its nuclear programme and wider economy by an extended campaign of bombing and sanctions. It is hard to predict precisely how much damage would be done to the global economy by a spike in the price of oil. Whatever economic damage is caused though I doubt it will halt military operations against Iran. There are probably a number of contingencies in place though such as bringing additional pipeline capacity (to the Red Sea) online in Saudi Arabia and possibly making available stocks from the US strategic oil reserve. Moreover, the closure of the Strait of Hormuz will almost certainly result in the rest of the gulf countries instantly arraying themselves against Iran and providing whatever support is required to a coalition whose mission will be to re-open the strait (and most likely render Iran unable to seriously threaten navigation in the area again in the near future). With an abundance of bases and facilities from which to operate, the coalition will most likely be able to absorb any Iranian ballistic missile attacks with little impact on their operations. I think a more likely scenario is a carefully calculated and calibrated response by Iran. In the case of a strike against Iran by Israel, Iran will most likely retaliate with ballistic missiles and through Hezbollah. It will probably also re-double its efforts to attack Israeli and Western targets through the associates of its Qods force. I think any attacks on gulf shipping are likely to be limited in scope so as not to invite massive retaliation. Iran might even decide to do a 'North Korea' by utilising its submarine fleet to attack shipping while retaining an element of deniability. Such attacks would nonetheless be sufficient to drive up oil prices. Iran could also increase its support of Afghan insurgent groups however I think they are unlikely to provide them with any really advanced weapons or equipment due to their distrust of such groups. On the other hand, it may well be that the Iranian government has made the calculation that no matter how extensive are the military strikes and sanctions levied against it, a ground invasion (other perhaps than a limited one on the gulf islands and Hormuz coastline) is extremely unlikely. The mullahs may even come to the conclusion that such operations will ultimately strengthen their regime in the long term. My own feeling is that the Iranian regime is on the whole a little too conservative to take such a gamble. However, there have long been reports of a conflict within the regime between more conservative elements and hardliners who wish to indulge in a more confrontational foreign policy. Given the very valid points raised by Yankee Dog, my assertions that a closure of the Strait of Hormuz by Iran would be temporary and would result in the destruction of the Iranian Navy may sound a bit foolhardy. However, the Strait of Hormuz is so vital to the global economy, the US and the wider international community would undoubtedly throw so many resources into the fight that Iran's navy would have a very short shelf life indeed, even in the best circumstances. I once read a fairly detailed report on how long the Iran was likely to be able to close the straits of Hormuz for. The report specified a minefield covered by shore launched anti-ship missiles as the most effective way to close the strait. One of the key variables determining the estimates of how long the straits would stay closed for was the extent to which the Iranians would be able to complete the minefield before their mine laying activities were halted. With regard to shore launched missiles, the report actually claimed that the terrain surrounding the Strait of Hormuz limited the area from which anti-ship missiles could be fired. IIRC the longest estimate of how long the strait would remain closed was somewhere in the region of 2-3 months. It would be interesting (although decidedly unpleasant) to read a report on what effects the closure of the Strait for 3 months was likely to have. I'll try to find the report and post it here. Sorry for the long post but this is something that (horrifyingly) fascinates me.

I tend to use hide when I'm expecting a whole load of shells or mortar bombs to come screeaming in any second. Havn't tested it but I'm pretty sure it increases survivability a little bit. I also use hide if I'm waiting in a close quarters ambush as hiding units are harder to spot than if they were just using a target arc.

The last thing I want is some big, fat, ugly icon obscuring my pretty Panthers and pixeltrupen. Just glad Lt Bull was not on the development team.

That's a shame, especially as I feel that the American campaigns are incomplete without them. There's still alot of other great stuff to look forward to in the meantime.

Very excited about this module. I've noticed that although SS and even Luftwaffe Field Divisions are being touted, there is no mention of Fallschirmjager. I hope they (and their FG42s and RCLs) havn't been forgotten.

I don't recall seeing any particularly clever tank-infantry tactics from the AI but I have seen the AI using artillery to cover tank advances (although not necessarily in a flawless manner) in quick battles. I've also seen the AI using smoke in QBs to cover armour and infantry advances-again, not necessarily flawlessly but not in a completley incompetent manner either. I've also seen the AI concealing armour well amongst clumps of trees in QBs. Bottom line as far as I'm concerned is that the AI could still do with improvement but it's significantly better than it was in CMSF.

I don't have an answer to your first question. With regard to when the next modern CM game is coming out, I thnk your being far too optimstic. 2012 is almost on us and we havn't seen the first module for CMBN yet. My understanding is that there are going to be two more ww2 titles (+modules) before we see another modern CM and that the modern CM will have a new engine (CMx3). Based on that, I would say your talking about some time after 2015. Unnless that is, another developer turns out a game using the CM engine as Snowball did. I would recommend trying the demo for CMBN if you havn't already. My prefference was for modern stuff too but I've been well and truly bitten by the ww2 bug now.

Personally, I like the buddy aid system. I don't think there's any need for medics to be added. It wouldn't work very well anyway-unless the 'aquire' command was modified so that units could aquire weapons and equipment from each other rather than just from vehicles. I'm slightly more blasse about casualties in CMBN but in CMSF I would go to great lengths to rescue wounded men. For me it greatly added to the immersion.

I think your right about Germany recieving the Typhoon first. I believe Italy and Germany recieved the Typhoons first as their requirement for a new fighter was most urgent. The Typhoons were replacing Phantoms in the Luftwaffe and Starfighters in the AMI. I don't know what air-to ground capabilities the Typhoons had in German service in 2008. Shame we didn't get the Boelkow BO 105s as it would have been nice for the Germans to have their own attack helicopter support.

That's true, it's been done in the past. In fact, the Typhoons were actually rushed through integration of Paveway in case they were required for service in Afghanistan. They achieved this capability in July 2008-just in time to catch the tail end of our hypothetical brawl in Syria. So I think its safe to say that at best they would have played a marginal role in the conflict.