Jump to content

So, what will be fixed/added in 1.08 ?


Recommended Posts

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Thats right but the point is the small arms lethality.

In reality soldier will get more or longer supressed or whipped out (fleeing) than simpy die (like in CMSF).

If im in CMSF in a building and take havy small arms fire my guys die fast, thats all. I wish to see that they get supressed and go to cover or flee to a saver position. That would make MOUT much more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Thats right but the point is the small arms lethality.

In reality soldier will get more or longer supressed or whipped out (fleeing) than simpy die (like in CMSF).

If im in CMSF in a building and take havy small arms fire my guys die fast, thats all. I wish to see that they get supressed and go to cover or flee to a saver position. That would make MOUT much more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

Heh.

So it seems that roughly half the forum thinks buildings don't offer enough cover, while the other half thinks they offer too much cover.

Guess BFC must have it about right. :D

For myself, I'm not really sure. . . whether I'm playing Red or Blue, when I put MY guys in buildings, they seem to get wiped out easily by just small arms fire, but when I'm trying to take out enemy infantry buildings, I can throw all sorts of ordnance at the building without killing everyone inside.

I do think it's instructive to read AARs from Iraq, particularly MOUT stuff like Fallujah. You don't have to look very hard to find accounts of US Forces throwing all sorts of ordnance at enemy-occupied buildings without completely killing, or even stopping return fire.

Cheers,

YD

Thats right but the point is the small arms lethality.

In reality soldier will get more or longer supressed or whipped out (fleeing) than simpy die (like in CMSF).

If im in CMSF in a building and take havy small arms fire my guys die fast, thats all. I wish to see that they get supressed and go to cover or flee to a saver position. That would make MOUT much more realistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the problem is that troops in buildings are able to shoot back pretty effectively (and continuously) even when under heavy fire. The problem isn't cover in general.

I think the problematic combo is fanatic troops in buildings. They are hard to suppress and even when they are shooting at you, you can't effectively shoot at them.

I repeat the main point here: if they are shooting at you, then it would seem logical that you can shoot at them.

If the defenders would like to take full cover of the building, then their ROF should be slowed down considerably. The reason for the drop is that the troops inside the building need to reposition themselves (this could be abstracted) and take only a couple of shots from one spot. If they shoot continuously from the same place, I would think experienced US troops should be able to locate & destroy the shooter quite quickly. (Given that there are some US troops that aren't severely suppressed, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the problem is that troops in buildings are able to shoot back pretty effectively (and continuously) even when under heavy fire. The problem isn't cover in general.

I think the problematic combo is fanatic troops in buildings. They are hard to suppress and even when they are shooting at you, you can't effectively shoot at them.

I repeat the main point here: if they are shooting at you, then it would seem logical that you can shoot at them.

If the defenders would like to take full cover of the building, then their ROF should be slowed down considerably. The reason for the drop is that the troops inside the building need to reposition themselves (this could be abstracted) and take only a couple of shots from one spot. If they shoot continuously from the same place, I would think experienced US troops should be able to locate & destroy the shooter quite quickly. (Given that there are some US troops that aren't severely suppressed, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For me the problem is that troops in buildings are able to shoot back pretty effectively (and continuously) even when under heavy fire. The problem isn't cover in general.

I think the problematic combo is fanatic troops in buildings. They are hard to suppress and even when they are shooting at you, you can't effectively shoot at them.

I repeat the main point here: if they are shooting at you, then it would seem logical that you can shoot at them.

If the defenders would like to take full cover of the building, then their ROF should be slowed down considerably. The reason for the drop is that the troops inside the building need to reposition themselves (this could be abstracted) and take only a couple of shots from one spot. If they shoot continuously from the same place, I would think experienced US troops should be able to locate & destroy the shooter quite quickly. (Given that there are some US troops that aren't severely suppressed, of course).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add another feature :

Burning terrain/buildings. I can't see why it has been removed from CMX1.

Oh and I want dedicated fireman to extinguish the fire to protect the terrain objective ;) .

Also,

Are you planning an improvement of the physics model?

I would like to see my MBT crushing the taxi car blocking the road or my Hummer roaming into a building. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add another feature :

Burning terrain/buildings. I can't see why it has been removed from CMX1.

Oh and I want dedicated fireman to extinguish the fire to protect the terrain objective ;) .

Also,

Are you planning an improvement of the physics model?

I would like to see my MBT crushing the taxi car blocking the road or my Hummer roaming into a building. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would add another feature :

Burning terrain/buildings. I can't see why it has been removed from CMX1.

Oh and I want dedicated fireman to extinguish the fire to protect the terrain objective ;) .

Also,

Are you planning an improvement of the physics model?

I would like to see my MBT crushing the taxi car blocking the road or my Hummer roaming into a building. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of the durability of heavy buildings against tank fire issue, AGAINST THE PANZERS, by Karamales and Vannoy, cites a battle in which the Americans were holed up on the ground floor and upstairs in a stone house and aside from a little dust's flying up when hit, were completely unperturbed by point blank range shelling. That changed in a hurry when a round came through the window, hitting on and utterly destroying the staircase, wrecking the room and forcing the evac of the men upstairs. Evidently, the stone was thick enough to defeat HE penetration, but it was another matter altogether when the shell went off inside.

The above may or may not be applicable to CMSF, depending on how heavy the construction is of buildings in the game. The general principle, though, is sound. Buildings can take enormous punishment, and tanks, because of major elevation limits on the main gun, can't engage more than a few stories up. This is precisely why we see pictures of RR's and similar many stories up in both Sarajevo and Beirut, to name but two. An HE detonation which would wreck the usual lightly constructed home isn't going to do much to a full blown building with a skeleton made of I-beams and floors and walls made of reinforced concrete. Indeed, similar construction at Stalingrad (brick faced reinforced concrete) was found to be practically immune to all but heavy bombs. Even then, only the first detonation did much, for it was tamped by the intact structure (walls, roof and floor) when it went off inside. Subsequent strikes usually did far less, for there was no tamping. Despite huge holes in floors and walls, the buildings stood. Combine such durability with motivated, angry defenders, and you've got your work cut out for you.

While a JDAM can certainly reduce a smaller building to rubble in one shot, the use of such heavy firepower has numerous downsides, especially if it blocks an important supply route or line of advance, never mind the collateral damage issue.

Now, let's look at the they can shoot me, but I can't shoot them very well argument. This is because they're not only in heavy cover (very low exposure %) but probably also in shadow. If the building has been actually prepared for defense,

the walls will be pierced with loopholes, small targets which are hard to hit even with precision fire, the fighting positions will be sandbagged, and the foe will have keyholed coverage, making it hard for us to mass fire on him. Combine that with a dominating position, say, commanding a square, and things get ugly in a hurry. This is why MOUT has historically been such a meatgrinder, and the application of heavy firepower makes things worse for the attacker by both creating fabulous cover where there was none before and by impeding movement, thus gutting offensive momentum

and increasing the target servicing time for the defender's weapons, multiplying their killing potential.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of the durability of heavy buildings against tank fire issue, AGAINST THE PANZERS, by Karamales and Vannoy, cites a battle in which the Americans were holed up on the ground floor and upstairs in a stone house and aside from a little dust's flying up when hit, were completely unperturbed by point blank range shelling. That changed in a hurry when a round came through the window, hitting on and utterly destroying the staircase, wrecking the room and forcing the evac of the men upstairs. Evidently, the stone was thick enough to defeat HE penetration, but it was another matter altogether when the shell went off inside.

The above may or may not be applicable to CMSF, depending on how heavy the construction is of buildings in the game. The general principle, though, is sound. Buildings can take enormous punishment, and tanks, because of major elevation limits on the main gun, can't engage more than a few stories up. This is precisely why we see pictures of RR's and similar many stories up in both Sarajevo and Beirut, to name but two. An HE detonation which would wreck the usual lightly constructed home isn't going to do much to a full blown building with a skeleton made of I-beams and floors and walls made of reinforced concrete. Indeed, similar construction at Stalingrad (brick faced reinforced concrete) was found to be practically immune to all but heavy bombs. Even then, only the first detonation did much, for it was tamped by the intact structure (walls, roof and floor) when it went off inside. Subsequent strikes usually did far less, for there was no tamping. Despite huge holes in floors and walls, the buildings stood. Combine such durability with motivated, angry defenders, and you've got your work cut out for you.

While a JDAM can certainly reduce a smaller building to rubble in one shot, the use of such heavy firepower has numerous downsides, especially if it blocks an important supply route or line of advance, never mind the collateral damage issue.

Now, let's look at the they can shoot me, but I can't shoot them very well argument. This is because they're not only in heavy cover (very low exposure %) but probably also in shadow. If the building has been actually prepared for defense,

the walls will be pierced with loopholes, small targets which are hard to hit even with precision fire, the fighting positions will be sandbagged, and the foe will have keyholed coverage, making it hard for us to mass fire on him. Combine that with a dominating position, say, commanding a square, and things get ugly in a hurry. This is why MOUT has historically been such a meatgrinder, and the application of heavy firepower makes things worse for the attacker by both creating fabulous cover where there was none before and by impeding movement, thus gutting offensive momentum

and increasing the target servicing time for the defender's weapons, multiplying their killing potential.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Apropos of the durability of heavy buildings against tank fire issue, AGAINST THE PANZERS, by Karamales and Vannoy, cites a battle in which the Americans were holed up on the ground floor and upstairs in a stone house and aside from a little dust's flying up when hit, were completely unperturbed by point blank range shelling. That changed in a hurry when a round came through the window, hitting on and utterly destroying the staircase, wrecking the room and forcing the evac of the men upstairs. Evidently, the stone was thick enough to defeat HE penetration, but it was another matter altogether when the shell went off inside.

The above may or may not be applicable to CMSF, depending on how heavy the construction is of buildings in the game. The general principle, though, is sound. Buildings can take enormous punishment, and tanks, because of major elevation limits on the main gun, can't engage more than a few stories up. This is precisely why we see pictures of RR's and similar many stories up in both Sarajevo and Beirut, to name but two. An HE detonation which would wreck the usual lightly constructed home isn't going to do much to a full blown building with a skeleton made of I-beams and floors and walls made of reinforced concrete. Indeed, similar construction at Stalingrad (brick faced reinforced concrete) was found to be practically immune to all but heavy bombs. Even then, only the first detonation did much, for it was tamped by the intact structure (walls, roof and floor) when it went off inside. Subsequent strikes usually did far less, for there was no tamping. Despite huge holes in floors and walls, the buildings stood. Combine such durability with motivated, angry defenders, and you've got your work cut out for you.

While a JDAM can certainly reduce a smaller building to rubble in one shot, the use of such heavy firepower has numerous downsides, especially if it blocks an important supply route or line of advance, never mind the collateral damage issue.

Now, let's look at the they can shoot me, but I can't shoot them very well argument. This is because they're not only in heavy cover (very low exposure %) but probably also in shadow. If the building has been actually prepared for defense,

the walls will be pierced with loopholes, small targets which are hard to hit even with precision fire, the fighting positions will be sandbagged, and the foe will have keyholed coverage, making it hard for us to mass fire on him. Combine that with a dominating position, say, commanding a square, and things get ugly in a hurry. This is why MOUT has historically been such a meatgrinder, and the application of heavy firepower makes things worse for the attacker by both creating fabulous cover where there was none before and by impeding movement, thus gutting offensive momentum

and increasing the target servicing time for the defender's weapons, multiplying their killing potential.

Regards,

John Kettler

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.)

The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's.

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.)

The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's.

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.)

The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's.

Regards,

Ken

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...