agusto

Re "girl's basketball", you can keep your New York Liberty. I'll watch the Aussie netball thanks very much.

I have not done any testing on the cmsf2 game, but I have tested in the past and found that the modern snipers in the game can get kills pretty consistently up to 600 meters with most of their rifles.
I have not seen anything since playing SF2 that makes me question that they are still capable of doing the same.
I suspect there is some type of cover, even if its just a fold in the ground that has created the problem for him.
As mentioned, the game does not adjust the targeting, it will do the same over and over to no avail.
I had it happened with a tank just a few days ago. wasted a 1/2 dozen shots on the same target and there was no reason it should not be hitting the enemy unit. So I moved it just a nudge, it missed once at the new location then a killing shot.
Same goes with infantry, sometimes you just have to adjust the location of the shot , even if it looks perfect from the present location. (long before you let it shoot as long as you did)

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)

Well as its all fictional you do have a fair whack of leeway so I wouldn't worry too much about what you're proposing.
The premise of a small unit getting ambushed is fine but the Immediate Action (IA) drill on ambush is to break contact and get out of the engagement area. From there it would be a case of assessing the situation. In this instance, there are casualties to extract or maybe a vehicle to deny to the enemy. As a result, it would be unusual for a unit in such a situation to then think about attacking an insurgent stronghold so (2) in 'Situation Blue' is stretching credibility a bit.
The 150 insurgents is on the high side but I accept that potentially you will need those numbers to deliver a gameplay challenge. I think you should establish through testing and through Victory Point allocations whether you can cut the numbers down as much as you can. Once you've done that, the trick is not to frontload the player with that information and then make it clear in the designer notes that the number of bad guys is for gameplay reasons.
It is entirely possible that an insurgent group could concentrate a sizeable force without detection - Google Camp Bastion attack (numbers weren't that large but all in all an epic fail on the part of Blue). CMSF is set in 2008 and the only country fielding UAVs in significant numbers was the US. It would therefore not be unrealistic for the Germans to be a little short on this type of information. Speaking professionally, it is worth pointing out that Intelligence is the result of analysing information, with the best intelligence usually being derived from multiple sources. The presence or absence of intelligence will again depend on your narrative. If this is notionally the first patrol into the area then the chances are that insurgents could muster a sizeable force and spring a surprise.
As to the reinforcement arrival piece … well it depends how far away the Quick Reaction Force is and how they would travel from the FOB to the area of the contact. Typically a QRF is going to be about platoon-sized so your proposal is about right and should be on a fairly short notice to move,. Maximum being about 30 minutes. Bear in mind that 30 minutes NTM does not mean that they will arrive in 30 minutes, it means that they will step off 30 minutes after they get told to do so.
For the purposes of your scenario and talking in fairly generic terms ...
Let's say that the FOB containing your platoon sized QRF is 10 minutes' travel away from the location of the contact. The QRF platoon is on 30 minutes NTM so the earliest that they will arrive in the contact area is 40 minutes. Realistically it would be longer than that because of various frictions, the first of which will be for the HQ to decide based on the information provided to launch the QRF. This can take at least 5 minutes or so. There will be other frictions such as Schutze Dummkopf getting lost between the accommodation and the Helipad/wagons so let's say 45 minutes and if its dark add another 5 minutes.
Arrival of air will depend very much on what's available and how it is all set up in theatre. Typically, any given ATO (Air Tasking Order) will have a couple of airframes either dedicated to ECAS (Emergency Close Air Support - or whatever its called these days) or there will be airframes that can be dynamically tasked. Those airframes will be in the air rather than scrambling to a contact and all that is required is for the JTAC to hook up with the whoever owns the air or its higher headquarters and request ECAS or a dynamic retask. That whole process, which will include the higher HQ deciding whether the request warrants support, shouldn't take too long and from there it then becomes a speed/time/distance problem. Let's face it, a jet capable of Mach 2 ain't going to take more than a couple of minutes to get on station. From there, you'll have the checking in process between the JTAC and the aircrew and both parties working out who is where, what to strike and all that sort of stuff.
Insurgents work on hit and run 99% of the time so the default COA should be exactly that. There are of course the 1% situations which may be for a variety of reasons:
1) A poor commander.
2) The insurgent commander senses an opportunity to inflict a significant defeat.
3) The contact area has some significance to the insurgents.

@agusto, no worries.
The morale question could be debated all day but for the purposes of mission making you don't need to think too hard about how Schutze Schmidt is feeling at this point or how you should rate a professional Bundeswehr against a Syrian militia.  For mission making it comes down to your design decision, what is achievable in the editor and somebody being able to play the thing.
I would recommend testing various soft factor settings to see how your troops perform with those settings versus the effect you want to achieve. It is no good for instance to drop the unit's motivation to poor because you judge that this is how they would feel after seeing their mates die if that unit can then not be moved by the player because it remains in a pinned state for the whole game. Likewise, a sweeping rating of Syrian militia as untrained conscripts based on a real life assessment is no good if that militia doesn't present enough of a challenge to the player.
As I said, motivation is not the only soft factor in play here - you could drop the leadership factors to simulate shocked leaders or decision paralysis and you could drop experience levels to simulate the unit being jittery.
The bottom line though is it has to be playable, giving the player a reasonable chance of achieving the goals you set them as a mission designer. In simple terms, based on your description, the tension in the mission is created by the arrival time of the reinforcements and the extraction. The decisions the player has to make based on those tensions are:
Whether to stay close to the contact area and keep the insurgents away from the destroyed vehicle and desecrating the bodies of the fallen and relying on the QRF to rock up in time. Whether to extract immediately to avoid being surrounded and defeated in detail by the pursuing enemy. Tricks that you can use to achieve this effect are to vary the reinforcement arrival times and give the enemy a scheme of manoeuvre that makes it obvious that encirclement is a threat early on. Pulling this off well will require testing because essentially it is a balancing act of creating enough pressure on the player at the right time without overwhelming them.
The recent consensus regarding mission design seems to be that insanely difficult missions with only one possible solution are the least liked.

Since the Turkish mods/scenarios are third party there's no reason to stick to the official 2007 timeline. The camou schemes are 2018, it was the Turkish army's incursion into Syria in January that piqued peoples' interest.
I just can't get used to the weird Turkish camou.
 

I liked your mix and match Uncons mod, with Combatants a 50/50 mix of masked and unmasked (Spy) guys. That's how they generally fight when TV cameras aren't filming.

Eh, I don't see any harm in posting a pict since early models had already appeared in the AAR.
 

The positive side of CMSF1 mods not working in CMSF2 is that CMSF2 has the appearance of a well-modded CMSF1.  In the pics shown of CMSF2, the graphics look very similar to my heavily modded CMSF1.  ie:  One may not need to mod CMSF2 nearly as much as we did CMSF1. 
That is a very good thing as it is a PITA to keep up with a plethora of mods that may interfere with one another, or become obsolete when new game versions become available.

CMSF2 will not require a functioning CMSF install. It is complete in itself.  The only thing your CMSF license determines is your discount.  As to mods,yeah I’d say most mods for CMSF will not work in CMSF2 

CMSF2 upgraded to game engine 4...cant believe this finally happens.
" I said now I know the answers, “Do dreams come true?” " - Tupac

I'm trying to imagine reasons someone (anyone) would look at that and NOT expect there to be mines in the middle. Like, seriously. Dude literally left a big polygon of wire in the middle of the road, I wonder what's inside...?
Mines are useful to me in limited doses, for very specific purposes. One of the best uses is planting them on the AS next to doorways, especially the only doorway into/out of a building with good line of sight. Another good use is placing them along map edges when facing another player. Occasionally, I'll leave an entire objective undefended but covered in mines, with a TRP emplaced; the mines act as a sort of sensor and artillery/mortars follows up on whatever is there.
But the use is situational, so it is rare for me to invest too much into them. Personally, I think they could use a bit of a price reduction, especially obstacles like wire. Even better if defenders could get a preset minimum, depending on stance (hasty or deliberate defense) to which players could add more if they chose.

Morning/afternoon/evening everyone! I return, with the second entry of the AAR.

In the interests of keeping the amount of "filler" entries low, this post will cover both my initial plans and the first few turns of the engagement.
 

Reasoning that it is somewhat pointless to come up with a detailed and intricate plan without having any knowledge of Rinaldi's dispositions, I'll develop my plan as I conduct a reconnaissance. This initially consists of my four scout teams moving forward dismounted, two moving into the high ground on my right and two straddling the MSR on my left. Each duo of scouts is backed up by their APCs and a section of Scimitars, who will follow up to lend support to the scouts when they encounter opposition. The Javelins are deployed mounted up to my extreme right. I am also moving the tac air controller team in the centre, to take up position on the high ground to my front.
 

Now, onto my plans thus far. My task (and that of my enemy) is simplified somewhat by the terrain; the irrigation ditch running across the AO limits me to just three axes of advance. The first axis (the arrow marked '1' on the map above) is a simple advance straight down the middle, over Tweedledee and into the objective. The second axis is a left hook, going over Tweedledum and following the MSR to the objective. The third axis is also a left hook, but even wider; going over Tweedledum and then occupying Point 228 before descending the hill to make a final assault on the objective. Whichever axis that I choose will be supported by a base of fire on the high ground to my front and right. My force composition also limits my choices; with a grand total of 16 men making up my whole infantry complement, I can only really afford to choose one axis for my main effort.
 

"Whichever of you mugs is humming the Jaws theme best pack it the 'eck in . . ."
 
Now, to go over the pros and cons of each axis.
Axis 1 - Pros:
- Most simple of the three plans
- Will take the least time to prepare and execute
Cons:
- Can be enfiladed from enemy positions at the Tool Houses and Point 228
- No concealment or cover; the ground leading to the objective is completely open
- Open to fire from the South side of the objective and from Point 225
- All potential enemy positions at the Tool Houses, Point 228 and Point 225 will have to be suppressed for the final assault on the objective, as well the objective itself
- Attacking from the same position as my base of fire allows the enemy to concentrate all his fire in one direction
Axis 2 - Pros:
- Will neutralise any enemy positions at Tool Houses
- Provides some cover and concealment from enemy positions in the objective and Point 225
- The enemy is forced to split his fire between my base of fire and the manoeuvre force (or shoot at one and not the other)
Cons:
- Is enfiladed at very close range by enemy positions on Point 228; Point 228 will have to be suppressed while the plan is being executed
- Will take longer to prepare and execute; more distance has to be covered
- Vulnerable to a counterattack from the reverse slope of Point 228
Axis 3 - Pros:
- Will neutralise enemy positions at the Tool Houses and Point 228
- The enemy is forced to split his fire between my base of fire and the manoeuvre force (or shoot at one and not the other)
- Provides an additional place from which the objective can be overwatched
Cons:
- Advance up the slope of Point 228 will be enfiladed by the objective and Point 225
- Assault on the positions at Point 228 could be costly and very time consuming
- Vulnerable to a counterattack from the reverse slope of Point 228
- Will take the longest amount of time to prepare and execute
Each plan has some pretty big cons, which is somewhat concerning. I do know one thing though: whichever plan I go with, and however my enemy responds, the objective is going to be swarming with enemy troops. Thus, the objective is going to be smothered in fires, from both my base of fire and my rotary-wing support.
 

And as always, the enemy gets a vote. I made some analysis of the enemy in my last post, but a few things have occurred to me since then. He may have minefields, in which case there is a 99.99% chance that they will be placed on Tweedledum and Tweedledee, and if he has enough of them then there'll probably be some in the entrances to the objective too. Minefields will make my job much harder and without engineers there is, to be frank, jigger all that I can do about it other than grit my teeth and push on through. Freezing up and trying to find another route would give my opponent a wonderful opportunity to inflict heavy losses on me (Rinaldi isn't an amateur; if he has minefields, they'll be covered by fires). The enemy may also have indirect fire support. Each Syrian Reserve Mechanised Battalion gets a platoon of six 120mm mortars and each rifle company within the Battalion gets a section of two 120mm mortars. It is entirely possible that Rinaldi's platoon has the company mortars in support. If I get pinned down or take too long to move from one spot, those 120mms could do some horrendous damage to my small force. Now, that said, Syrian call-in times for indirect fire are quite simply diabolical; in a previous match that I played, it took my Syrian Special Forces forward observer team *seven minutes* to call in a barrage from a section of 82mm mortars. I can't imagine what the call-in time for a reservist mortar section must be like. If I keep moving, any potential mortars shouldn't be an issue, but it is still something to keep in mind.
So far I still can't make up my mind about which of my potential schemes of manoeuvre to go with. All of them are equally unpalatable. My force has does not have sufficient firepower to suppress every potential enemy position and all it takes is one lucky close-range volley from an enemy position to make one of my infantry teams combat ineffective, or to knock out one of my Scimitars. All I can say at this stage is . . . a mortar! A mortar! My kingdom for a mortar!
But alas, it is pointless to screech about what I don't have. You play the hand that you've been dealt. At this stage, I believe that more reconnaissance is needed before I go through with any of my plans. I can at least move the units that will form my base of fire into position (the Javelin troop and at least two Scimitars) while my scouts move forward.
 

And finally, at 42:13, contact is made with the enemy! Scout Team 4, moving up along the road on my left, takes fire from their front. They swiftly identify their assailant as an MMG team, hunkered in a trench on Point 228. Sadly, I hadn't been paying enough attention to the micro terrain, as Team 3 on the other side of the road are in the low ground of the orchard and can't see the hill. So much for bounding overwatch!
 

The sniper in Team 4 is already taking aim at the MMG team before the turn ends, but I decide that a four-man scout team getting into a shootout with an MMG is a mug's game, so in my next turn I order them to drop down and crawl back behind the curve of the hill, while I move my Scimitars forward and get Team 3 into a position where they can actually support their pals over the road.
Right, this post is at a good length now, and I've covered all of my planning so far. First contact with the enemy is a good point to end on I think. Thanks for all the feedback so far everyone!

Personally, I would rather see resourced directed towards CM: Fulda Gap than Black Sea 2. 

Ahaha, so going by BFCs engine development it will visually look like a game from 2002?
J/K guys, love the game.

I want to avoid confusion from the start of the original thread to this one, since it's technically a different scenario.  Much is the same, but I'm doing it anyway!


SITUATION
Thanks to the successful battle and crossing of the canals near Pryvitnoe by 2nd Battalion, we have been tasked with exploiting the gap in the Ukrainian lines.
We have one final barrier to cross before the total colapse of the Ukrainian defenses occurs on the southern flank: the river Dniepr.  Ukrainian forces are dug in deep alon the major crossings near Kherson and 1st Battalion has encountered stiff resistance further north of us.
Intelligence has identified a weak spot by the town of Prydinprovs'ke.  This will be a tough one, since there is only one bridge in the area.  We'll have to force a river crossing.  Thankfully, the Ukrainian units have only just arrived and not had time to dig in properly.
MISSION
Our job is to cross the Dniepr and move troops further north to further stress the fragile Ukrainian defense.  Thus, we have two main objectives for this engagement:
1. Cross the river and penetrate the enemy lines and continue to Kherson
2. Eliminate the defenders on the river crossing for follow on forces to continue at speed
3. Minimize casualties.  It should go without saying that sacrificing too many of our boys will reduce the effectiveness of our crossing, and no one wants to write those letters.
4. Destroy SAM battery.  Elements of the 208. SAM Brigade are in the area of operations.  Take the site and destroy any equipment you can find.
FRIENDLY FORCES
Our 2nd Battalion, 18 Motor Rifle Regiment has the following assets in the area:
- Reconnaisance platoon
- ATGM platoon
- Grenade launcher platoon
- 2 combined arms companies
    - 3 platoons of BTR-82 mounted infantry (amphibious)
    - 1 platoon of T-72B3 tanks
Support assets are as follows:
- 3 platoons of 2S3M2 152mm howitzers, a total of 18 guns on call for this crossing
- 1 platoon of 2S7M2 203mm howitzers, a total of 4 guns on call from the divisional resources.  We're lucky to have these, so use them wisely.
- 1 flight of Mi-24PN gunships from frontal aviation
ENEMY FORCES
Enemy forces consist of elements of the 28 Mechanised Brigade that our sister battalion previously faced at Pryvitnoe.  These guys are tough, so be careful!
PLAN
There are three crossing points that we have identified.
The first, and most dangerous is the bridge leading into Prydinprovs'ke.  This is a long and wide open approach so should be considered only a last resort until the overlooking areas are cleared.
The second and primary crossing point is Landing Zone Boris, across from the Dachas at point Elena.  The dachas provide decent cover for the approach to the river and point Boris is a fairly flat area also covered by trees.
The final crossing point is to Landing Zone Vasiliy.  There is a narrow path up through the area, but it may be an unexpected direction.

Tactical map to show the locations in the briefing.  The objectives have morphed somewhat.  Russian forces gain points for sending troops off-map on objective G, for destroying Ukrainian units, minimising own casualties and finally destroying the forces that are at the SAM site before they can evacuate.

My plan is much the same as before.
EXECUTION
1. Company (1-я pота) will approach the dachas along the western path through the woods in column.  Upon reaching the buildings, they will deploy in line formation and prepare to cross the river.  5. Platoon (1/5-й взвод) will take position along the axis of the bridge to provide fire support.  1. Company will clear the riverbank and advance into the town proper to provide cover for the tanks to cross the bridge.
2. Company (2-я pота) will also approach the dachas along the eastern path through the woods in column.  Upon reaching the buildings, they will also deploy in line formation and prepare to cross the river.  5. Platoon (2/5-й взвод) will advance alongside 1. Company and take positions near the dachas to provide fire support to the crossings.  2. Company will then advance past the buildings and threaten the SAM complex before continuing to Kherson.
The reconnaissance platoon (Разведка) will advance through the dried creek to the west and prepare for their own crossing to the west of the bridge.  They will form a distraction for the enemy, to disrupt the enemy defence as 1. and 2. Companies cross the Dniepr.  They will then continue to cut off any Ukrainian movement to retreat to Kherson.
The weapons company will deploy among the manoeuvre elements and provide a base of fire for each crossing.
Once the main body is across the river, fire support elements will mount and make their own crossings.  Once the area is cleared of heavy weapons, the tank platoons will storm across the bridge.
FIRE SUPPORT
Fire phases will be divided into three phases: DYNYA (melon) will initiate fire plans, with all batteries firing at designated targets with the objective of destruction.  When the order to cross is given, fire missions will shift to phase YABLOKO (apple).  Fire missions during this phase will be aimed at suppressing enemy ability to fire or manoeuvre to protect our assets as they cross the river.  As our forces make landfall, fire missions will shift to phase GRUSHA (pear).  Fire missions during this phase will be designed to cut off the defenders from reinforcements as they are run out of their positions.
The organic 120mm mortars will be on call to strike targets of opportunity, and will be providing smoke for the crossing at fire phase YABLOKO.  Upon fire phase GRUSHA, the mortars will fire on zones 112 and 113 to suppress defenders attempting to contain the landing of the recce platoon.
2 of the 3 2S3 batteries will be tasked with striking target zones 211 and 212 respectively, until fire phase GRUSHA corresponding with the crossing attempt, after which they will shift their fire to focus on zone 213 as forces approach the shore.
The final 2S3 battery will be firing on zone 111 until fire phase GRUSHA, after which it will shift fire to zone 112.
The 2S7 battery will be firing in support of the main crossing effort and will hit zones 211 and 212 until fire phase YABLOKO.  The heavy guns will then shift to suppressing forces in zones 112 and 213 to prevent further reinforcements from engaging the landing.
The pair of Mi-24s will be given free reign of the opposite bank, hitting any targets of opportunity the pilots can find.
----
And in a twist of fate that I'm sure will make @Haiduk happy - the bridge is actually a railroad bridge now!

And for those interested in a play-along, I've attached the scenario to this post!  There is no AI at the moment - H2H only, and I haven't a clue if it's balanced!
An der Schoenen Blauen Dnjepr.btt

take my money, please. Full price.

^ This. Mein gott, there is one in every thread. 

For all those Ostfront-veterans who are awaiting the first snow: remember the excellent Winter Mod made by Kohlenklau, BarbaricCo, Kevinkin and others. It will do nicely until the real thing arrives.  Or until Steve will throw us some icy bones...

 

Go to bed I said, nah check just one more time!! Woo Hoo!!!!! Thanks Steve!!

Ukrainian BMPs surpressing the remaining russians on the other side of the bridge. Crossing rivers can be expensive.

Instead of having a wish list of features we all know won't be put into the game , instead I thought it might be more productive if we could assemble a list of issues that are in need of fixing, with the hopes that some bug squashing, or missing features might instead be fixed or added into CMSF2.

To begin, one of the oldest missing features in all of CMx2, the Recon Variant of the Humvee, with it's large mounted optical device, does not function. At all.
I'd like to see this thing actually working in CMSF2.

Also, I've noticed that the mast-mounted primary gunner sight on the Marder 1A3 does not function either. Placing the vehicle, buttoned up, hull down to an enemy vehicle no more than 100 meters away on an open, flat surface, leads to no positive contact at all, despite the large optic looking directly at the enemy.

Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed issues like these, or had some old bugs they would like to see squashed.

Some screens from the Gagarinina Avenue Checkpoint scenario
Tank platoon moving to battle stations

T-90A trying to spot enemies

Fire!

Close to the end of the battle, one of mine T-90 finally spots (trough smoke) and eliminate that pesky Bulat that was ruining my day


Then i was able to close on objectives and win the battle, despite losing 2 tanks 1 apc and some troops
 

amBush

Hi there. Hope you guys don't mind a lurker like me contributing to this thread.
Situation: M1A2s in an overwatch position covering a Bradley assault into town (Rolling Thunder Scenario)