Peach Operations Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Originally posted by LarsS: If even the US 81 mm mortar is as effective against entrenched troops in RL as in the game, I'd make sure of having some sort of over-head protection if I were Syrian. Nothing fancy, just a simple roof with a few sandbags on it would make a world of difference. And since the squads fight all bunched up and don't spread out properly, they really need over-head protection not to be overly vulnerable to light shrapnel. Tell me about it. I don't even worry too much about Syrian trenches in game if I have 155s or even a couple of 120mm mortar sections. You almost wonder what the point is -- Syrian squads in game appear to be safer in a tiny shack than in their trenches. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Even trenches with "fragment cover holes" would do good. Idea would be that troops in 'hide'-mode goes to holes and are safe from anything but from direct hits (lots of suppression could also make them to go to holes). They would be also in complete convealment from anything but enemy troops in trench or near distance from trench. If engine is incapable in representing foxholes, this might be easier way to reach almost same level of survival and also easier way to get around of possible enginelimition (ofcourse i'm not coder so...) Ofcourse this might be better way to enable proper use of fighting positions than foxholes. As high level of fortifications means that troops can move around from foxhole to foxhole by using trench. Using just foxholes makes use of additional firing positions to flanks quite immpossible, as men can't move around in cover. Once they leave their foxhole they are very easily suppressed and eventually dead, so trench has to able to reach each foxhole... which sound quite impossible to make true in CMSF when thinking CMSF's 8x8 meter tile system as you should have trench going into each foxhole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OG_Gleep Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 Army of Two really is ment to be played with two. Totally different game with a buddy or wife (my case...and it was still fun), that if you were playing solo. The guns were a bit pricey but it was intended to give incentive for multiple play throughs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 OG-Gleep, Was playing it co-op until we hit an area where the only way to break it was to first discover a way through solo. Unfortunately after playing through for a bit, my friend couldn't restart the co-op game where we left off, so it was even harder! There are so many wonderful objects (trucks, generators, lighting stands, refueling areas) in that game I'd love to see in ours, but I was also all but driven mad when the invisible walls started appearing, blocking the simplest of obstacles (2 ft. high guardrail) and channeling us into a kill zone. Also, SA-2s aren't M-11 ballistic missiles, would die horribly if penetrated repeatedly by small arms (liquid fueled) and in any case, are much more dangerous when fitted with a warhead! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.