CMx1 to CMx2 recipe

[YankeeDog]

SPOILERS: ATGM AMUBUSH

The AI kicked my @ss when I first tried to play this scenario as Blue. This was partially due to unfamiliarity with the game, though, as it was one of the first scenarios I tried. After a couple of tries, I was able to get a decent result (one Bradley KOed, one M-kill, Syrian surrender).

But, reading your troubles, Jason, I decided to give it a try as Red for the first time.

On seeing the Red setup for the first time, I noticed one thing right away: The red default setup sucks. You need to tweak the positions of the AT4s teams especially so they have better cover; if you check LOS carefully, you'll see that there's actually a fighting crest on the top of the final rise. Terrain cover from crests and folds plays a much larger role in CMx2 than in CMx1.

The RR positions are also too exposed; there are saddle positions in the lee of the hills mid-map that give you excellent flank fire positions into the valley, while limiting your exposure to anything coming over the top of the hills.

Anyway, I made my adjustments to positions, put all my forces on "Hide" and hit "Go."

At about 29:30, 30 seconds in, I unhid my ATGM teams, as the Bradleys were coming on very fast.

Result: 6 ATGM launches, 4 hits. All Bradleys KOed by 28:07. None of the ATGM teams were ever taken under fire. I took one casualty to my MG plt HQ, which got spotted by one of the Bradleys and taken under fire for exactly one 25mm burst, before the Bradley was KOed by an ATGM.

I stopped there and re-ran the scenario from setup, with roughly the same result.

I was going to post a picture of the KOed Bradleys here, along with my ATGM setup, but I'm having troubles taking screen pics because I'm on a Bootcamped Mac, and my keyboard has no "Print Screen" button. :confused: Any guidance would be appreciated. . . But I can send the save game file to anyone who'd like to see.

So I come to the opposite conclusion: Bradleys are coffins on treads. Squishies Rock.

Cheers,

YD

PS: One other note: This is playing Realtime Elite. IME, playing "Elite" mode makes ATGMs much more dangerous, as it's harder to concentrate fire from multiple units onto them quickly once they reveal and fire.

[ April 12, 2008, 02:35 PM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Cuirassier]

Since JasonC and YankeeDog have arrived at apparently two completely different conclusions regarding the effectiveness of infantry versus afv's, I decided to give ATGM Ambush a try.

I agree with YankeeDog that the initial setup for red is poor and must be adjusted. I moved my HQ's to the rear out of LOS, shifted the AT-4 positions into better cover and made sure the SPG-9's were really hugging the crests on the flanks. The only units not hiding were the MG teams, though they were given 400m cover arcs. My ATGM's were also given 400m cover arcs.

My results? Three turns in both of my ATGM's open up on the Bradley's. The right placed launcher fires two missiles and the left launcher one missile. All the missiles hit each Bradley, resulting in all of the afv's brewing up! I recieved no return fire at all. 3 missiles fired and 3 dead Bradley's in a minute of action.

Certainly lots of this must have been luck, because Bradely's don't seem to brew up often from AT-4 hits. But when I played the scenario this time, the infantry certainly beat the afv's, and easily.

If anyone is wondering, I played the scenario on the elite level and turn based. I will certainly try the scenario again to see how much of it was luck.

Edit: I tried the the scenario a second time. Indeed, my first run through was very lucky. However, this time around, despite some poor performances from the AT-4's, I still managed to knock out three Bradley's for the loss of 1 ATGM team. Again, the SPG-9's were not used; the AT-4's did the killing.

This time around I had numerous misses (including the opening shot) and scored a couple hits that seemed ineffective against the Bradley's. Nonetheless, the Bradley's had difficulty spotting the ATGM launchers so the afv's were all eventually destroyed. My right hand ATGM launcher managed to fire off all of its missiles while the left hand launcher got off 3 missiles before dying.

FWIW.

[ April 12, 2008, 04:18 PM: Message edited by: Cuirassier ]

[gibsonm]

I'm sure I've read in yet another thread comments form Rune to the effect that ATGM Ambush is a ver 1.0 scenario (i.e. designed prior to the new LOS model and therefore would need to be adjusted in terms of initial setup to play "properly" in the new environment).

Also in the same post he says that it most of a "proof of concept" type scenario to demonstrate weapon capabilities not necessarily a fully tuned AI optimised type of thing.

So I suspect using it as some sort of litmus test isn't very sound.

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

I was going to post a picture of the KOed Bradleys here, along with my ATGM setup, but I'm having troubles taking screen pics because I'm on a Bootcamped Mac, and my keyboard has no "Print Screen" button. :confused: Any guidance would be appreciated. . . But I can send the save game file to anyone who'd like to see.

Cheers,

YD

You have a few options here:

1. If you have a full USB keyboard you can plug it in and use F14 as per a "normal" PC.

2. Alternatively there are utilities out there that let you remap "prt scn" to something else I think mine is set up for F11 which does exist on my Mac Book Pro keyboard.

3. Something like "Fraps" lets you take screen shots and again can be remapped to a key on the MacBook Pro keyboard (again I use F11 for consistency).

[JasonC]

I was on "veteran" (and turn based) - the lower FOW may make the difference, with faster reply fire etc. (Incidentally, playing this in an earlier patch, I also had no difficulty nuking the Brads - hits were kills then).

I agree the default set up was poor, the first time I spent 30 minutes adjusting it, the second time, because of the report of it being easy without doing so, I didn't.

I also found it hard to ensure the teams were all in cover at set up, and during in game moves. The placement snaps-to, the men wander from the designated point (and stand up during sneak movements after the lead guy reaches his waypoint, "gophering" into final position), the displayed trees aren't very informative about where there will be cover. At least twice I believe a stray man sticking out in the open or standing up at the wrong time, made a spotting difference serious enough to draw fire.

I found it hard to gauge LOS using the targeting line. One ATGM on the right in the case I set up myself, had a blue line to the whole open area along the road at set up, then in the game itself couldn't see anything but the hill tops on either side of it. It had to crawl forward to get LOS.

I also found it hard to gauge it during the game. I was taking fire behind a crest (suppressing rather than dying, it is true) without being able to reply myself, several times.

I am explaining so more veteran players can zero on things I may be doing wrong, just from lack of familiarity. Of course, I am also complaining about the interface and command abilities (lol).

The first time out, I did the doctrinal thing and waited for the Brad to reach the ambush zone (aka where the recoilless are getting LOS). On "veteran", that resulted in several Brad spots of my guys before they fired. The second time I engaged with the ATGMs alone at the back of the map, which is clearly the way to exploit their tech and to minimize Brad sighting back.

It sounds from other reports like it is veteran spotting that unbalances it in favor of the Brads. Obviously, in this situation, if the Brads start in LOS and only move down the road center area, the only realistic result is for all of them to be nuked without loss to the Syrians. (They'd have to use their foot scouts and the dead ground from the forward hills etc. Even so, in real life they'd also need callable arty for it).

[ April 13, 2008, 08:47 AM: Message edited by: JasonC ]

[JasonC]

gibson - that's a crock. The game either properly shows ATGM vs. AFV interactions or it doesn't. It should pass every such test, not a few specially designed ones. (From other's reports, it seems to be fine on elite - the issue here is, is it fair to test it this way).

If it takes not the right choices by the player or the wrong by the opponent, but the right stacking of the deck pre game by the scenario designer, then it is useless. You'd only get out the results the scenario designer specifically scripted - not enough cover, AFVs win, more than enough or dumb AI orders etc, ATGMs win. That is movie directing, not a sim or a game.

Not saying CMSF is in that situation, but "you can't use that one, it isn't designed perfectly" won't cut it. Are QBs going to be? Are things players themselves slap together in half an hour to try something out?

[JasonC]

With the reports from others and isolating on elite vs. veteran as the likely issue, I played this 3 more times on elite fog of war, and had no undue difficulty torching all the Brads each time.

Here are the remaining issues and pointers I noticed.

First, the leftmost ATGM team doesn't have LOS in the default set up. I corrected the whole set up as follows - leftmost ATGM team goes on the right side ridge, forward position at the treeline but within it, wide LOS. For one trial I did not adjust the other ATGM team - but I discovered a flaw in its positioning too, and move it slightly right and forward (higher up the slope) for the subsequent trials. The main ATGM HQ squad was put in brush behind all the trees, reverse slope-ee, on the right side ridge, behind and between the ATGM teams.

The right forward MG team was moved back to the hill on the left, forward-ish crestee treeline position. Both MGs weapons deployed and hiding. But were not used. The MG HQ a little closer to it. The recoilless rifles moved into brush filled depressions, with weapons deployed and hiding. Again, didn't need them, but that is the proper set up.

The first time, the leftward ATGM team did not fire itself in the first 30 seconds, and drew 25mm fire itself. I believe this is due to the leftmost man in the default placement being out of cover and visible. This team soon lost 2 men, but the third crawled right into trees and was (on elite, yay) lost by the Brads when he did so. He got off one missile later, after recovering.

The right side team nuked one Brad and missed once, drew reply fire that hit 2 men, crawled left and was lost, recovered morale, and fired all his remaining missiles over a total of 6 minutes, before getting the last Brad. Total missiles fired were 6 to get 3 kills, and 4 men were lost. This was the worst performance on "elite", and reflects the bad initial placement of the leftmost team.

The second time with corrected placement, all the Brads were nuked in the first 2 minutes, and reply fired was neglible. The third time they shot 2 men in the rightward team after his first kill. The remaining man crawled clear of the fire, was lost in tree cover, hide for a minute, and recovered. He did not get another missile off, as the other team had already done the job - without losing a man, and using 4 missiles.

So the average Syrian losses with 2-3 men and they won easily each time. As it should be.

The real moral then isn't about squishies or Brads, but about the "veteran" FOW setting. Don't use it if you want realistic infantry performance. Stick to "elite". I now consider this one "case closed", and thank everyone for the feedback.

[YankeeDog]

Interesting report, Jason.

I've never played anything but Elite, so I have no basis of comparison with Veteran. Having read your report, I'm glad I chose to play this way.

FWIW, I ran my own setups another 4-5 times, and saw similar results to yours. While there is considerable variation in how long and how many shots it takes, every time the ATGMs got all 3 Bradleys eventually.

Cheers,

YD

[Thomm]

Now the only problem we have is that the 'Veteran' level apparently is harder than 'Elite'.

Best regards,

Thomm

[JasonC]

Still investigating Red infantry forces and what they can do, I next tried the Wadi Scouts scenario as the Reds. My verdict is that this is a broken scenario that plays like Stryker ad copy. It is too stacked a deck to draw general conclusions from it, but I did see some issues and I'll highlight them below.

For those unfamiliar, this one has a low quality Syrian infantry company in prepared positions, probed by a large Stryker force, and then assisted part way in by a weak Syrian recon group in BRDMs.

The first problem I had was an inability to move around the various Syrian minefields at set up. Maybe there is some trick to moving them besides the usual "N" that works for mobile units? Or maybe they are padlocked I suppose. At any event, they resisted my efforts, when redeploying those sensibly was my first priority. Probably just an interface "argh" factor from inexperience. I accepted the rest of the Syrian set up, which proved a mistake immediately.

First because the bunkers are instantly visible from clear across the map, and 50 cal fire goes right through them. This led to the loss of 4 units or so, including one of only 2 recoilless teams, before they got a shot off in reply. Bunkers are big "kick me" signs and useless even against MG fire - I'd call that a bug. The units should be moved out into the trenches, which work considerable better as cover, and are stealthier.

Next the main AT line of defense is 2 Sagger 3 teams, conscript quality with 3 missiles each. Sagger 3s suck, conscripts suck harder. They fired all their missiles (half of them in various states of cower) and got all of 1 hit, which at best M-killed the target.

I think I managed to undeploy the remaining recoilless at set up, attempting to deploy it. In any event it spent over well over 3 minutes staring at Styrkers parked about 400 meters away after coming off "hide", before firing its first shot. Then it missed 2-3 times before being shot to rags by 50 cal fire, which killed men in trench cover clear across the map. Perhaps that was a function of slightly descending slope - if so, bad set up. No prepared position for a major crew served AT weapon would be so poor.

That left a single RPG-7 team. A real company would have 9 of the things, but the Syrians here are "nerfed" all around. It had good trench cover on a level slope, a bit higher than the approaching Strkers, which proved (realistically) excellent defense against physical hits by their MGs. It fired four times at ranges of 200-250 meters and missed every shot. Well, they are conscripts. The reply fire over their heads convinced the RPG gunner to "D" with the launcher (that exclamation point bug out marker), leaving the useless AK men.

Since the mines had not been repositioned sensibly, that about does it for the Syrian AT defense grid. They have MGs that can't penetrate a Stryker, and many grenade launchers meant to rag infantry, and AKs. But no other real AT weapons.

When the BRDMs showed up, I decided to try them out on a Stryker platoon caught from directly behind, and crested them together at 200 meters range dead astern. The Strykers shot them all to pieces inside 3 minutes without loss.

No American ever got out of his vehicle.

As I say, plays like a Stryker ad, in that the Syrians are given long suits that are useless against even their modest level of armor (just), while their AT assets are a third as numerous as they realistically would be, are all inferior types, and are then conscript quality to ensure they don't actually hit things and run to reply fire that can't physically hit them. Also the bunker SPG etc. The support AFVs aren't 3 T-62s or even BMPs that might fight Strykers, but the only things light enough to be useless against them. I stopped 17 minutes in.

The morals of this are - beware designer scenarios made for US side players meant to make things as easy as possible for them. Bunkers are broken, get out of them immediately. Conscripts suck. Trenches aren't good cover if on descending ground, are fine otherwise.

Next and on a more positive note, I tried a QB and I was pleased with the improvements in 1.08 vs. previous versions. I made it a tiny US probe by random force type, regular quality, against unconventional fighters, high quality, in rough.

First a comment on the general improvement in QBs. There were clear set up zones. The attackers were in their own on the far side of the map, which was large enough they started out of contact. None of the intermingled start on a postage stamp 400 meters on a side. The rough map was also impressively real, with very high "canyon" relief, worthy of a Bekkaa valley side "draw". At the Syrian end of it was a small village settlement of a dozen or so houses, and there were plenty of trench positions on the ridges and astride the approaching road, which came down the wiggling draw then straight into the village. The village is on lower ground that the approach, meaning ground level LOS is hard until a few hundred meters out. Good defensive terrain.

The unconventional Syrian force was also a good mix, not the useless technicals I sometimes saw in earlier patches. I got 3 snipers, 2 good RPG teams with 105mm HEAT, one Sagger teams with 5 missiles (though SA-3 is a poor type, any ATGM is better than none), a single MG team (7.62mm), and a small 3 man HQ. An IED would have been nice, but it worked as is. But even though these were highest quality "fighter" type unconventionals, the unit qualities were still "green". Arguably low, particularly for e.g. snipers, who tend to be picked men.

I put the ATGM and MG initially on rooftops with LOS about 500 meters up the canyon. One RPG on a ground floor at the village entrance, initial LOS only about 150 meters. The HQ in a ground floor interior building without LOS outside the village. The second RPG in a trench high on the left canyon wall, with one of the snipers further along the same trench. One sniper on a ground floor of the rightmost front building, with LOS of the canyon wall the others were on (to cover their own "deadspace"), and the last sniper on the left side, lower down and much farther back, able to see the last 250 meters or so of road approach, and the right side higher ground, while being "dead" aka masked for anything along the left side of the map.

The plan was for sniper cross fire to prevent any close infantry approach, for the ATGM to risk itself early to get vehicle kills, and then everyone goes quiet to draw them forward into range. The RPGs then try to ambush. As for the MG, it just covers the road against infantry approach - if it draws too much fire it would retreat to the ground floor.

The AI was a bit unaggressive, taking 5 minutes to negotiate the first piece of the canyon to LOS with its Bradleys. I then opened with the Sagger. First round missed (SA-3s suck, greens, etc), short, but thankfully the dust from the explosion block LOS and prevented reply. When it cleared there were 2 Bradleys in LOS. The second shot bagged one of them. Reply fire sent the Sagger team into wall crouch, but they survived the minute still under orders. I quicked them to the ground floor back windows, safely. They then returned to the front windows still ground floor, with initial LOS cut to 250m by the lower elevation, and waited.

The AI took its time after that, and sent a leg team along the left side canyon wall, before resuming the advance along the base of the canyon with its 3 remaining Brads. My rightmost sniper engaged the foot team, but to all appearances unsuccessfully. If drew some fire in return (not great, stealth wise), but survived it only somewhat suppressed.

As the Brads came closer in the middle, the MG team fired on the American squishies, drew fire, and had to "D" to the ground floor, but did so safely.

I then unhide the RPG team in the left canyon wall. It had 80 initial LOS to a Bradley right below it, broadside, and it didn't miss. Despite reply fire, including a couple squishies within 30 meters (!), it got off a second at another Brad and torched it too. The RPG gunner then bought it. The sniper next to him also unhide to fire at the nearby squishies, helped torch them, but was wiped out in turn by 25mm cannon fire from the last Brad.

Meanwhile the ground floor Sagger had clear LOS, but refused to fire from inside the building. I quicked them back to the roof at the end, but same story up there - they simply would not fire.

The remaining RPG team also quicked to its roof to get LOS, but was suppressed there and did not fire. The 20 time limit had by now expired, and at 22 minutes (2 into "red" time) I ceasefired to end it.

There were some quirks - trying to use the snipers with covered arcs, I think the AK man was firing and they were too easily spotted in return, because of it. After the sagger team moved, it did not fire for the rest of the game, I don't know why. Morale state was OK, and 3 minutes with clear LOS (to a hull down target, it is true) they wouldn't fire, and 1 minute roofed, likewise. Greens as max uncon quality ("fighter" and "high"), arguably too low (I'd settle for regulars for key teams and snipers).

But overall, the uncon "fighter" high quality were reasonably well armed and able to pull off realistic ambush tactics. They readily beat an AI driven (aka poorly commanded) Bradley platoon, in a realistic fashion. The rough terrain was good, and a 1.08 QB worked correctly, much better than in the past. It was fun, as well.

FWIW...

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

gibson - that's a crock. The game either properly shows ATGM vs. AFV interactions or it doesn't. It should pass every such test, not a few specially designed ones. (From other's reports, it seems to be fine on elite - the issue here is, is it fair to test it this way).

Jason, if you go back over my comments that Mark was referring too you will see that I was referring to the fact that the initial ATGM placement is off as the new LOS system is more accurate. More importantly the US AI is very very basic so it should not be used as any sort of reference to US reactions or movement. As such its not a great test scenario as is.

For interest sake I just gave it another shot on Veteran. My guys actually did a little better this time with the ATGMs taking out all Bradleys without a loss, though one was suppressed for a short amount of time. To me is seems that you were rather unlucky in your test, or your placement of the ATGMs may have not been optimal in your run through (I placed mine in brush to the rear, amongst the trees). I can see how things could certainly go wrong for the ATGMs in this scenario, but in general I think they should have the upper hand.

Dan

EDIT : Jason just noticed your last comment noting that you werent moving the ATGM teams. As I mention their placement isnt great since the ELOS changes so indeed, the results you were seeing werent unexpected. Glad you had been luck on the re runs.

[ April 13, 2008, 04:10 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[gibsonm]

Dan,

Sorry I should have checked before typing "Rune", but glad I had the gist of the comments correct, if not the author.

[JasonC]

KD - I tried moving them, then I tried not moving them because I was told one could win without doing so, then I moved them on elite and got better results. I still lost twice on veteran, both with moved placement and with default. And won 3 times on elite, with all-moved placement superior to half-moved. The set up is poor, yes, but the Brads also spot too well on veteran. On elite and with proper placement, no problem, the ATGMs win as they should.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gibsonm]

Adam,

Have you tried giving the Bradley's covered arcs and employing overwatch, etc?

I think the last time I visited this, my techniques was:

***** Possible spoiler for those who haven't played this ******

Keep the Infantry dismounted

Move the Bradleys to the flank (jinking as you go, not one straight movement plot).

Then advance on the two initial hills and take up positions on them.

Move the Infantry forward keeping to the wooded areas.

If you spot something use you indirect fire assets on it (from memory you get air and arty).

Then Bradleys should be able to fire on the MG's, SPG-9's in the low ground (i.e. left hand Bradley fires on right hand positions, etc.).

Then with two Bradley's in overwatch positions, move a third forward contouring around a hill.

And continue on.

A mounted charge down the road is always going to be "fun".

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

OK, tried a small rather than tiny uncon vs. Stryker fight, in a city this time. Actually I started with a "town", but the map was too silly to bear playing on, and I went on the "city". (The "town" map was a 200 by 200 meters postage stamp of packed buildings, set in an open desert with a few rocky patches. The whole built up area ever so slightly elevated).

At small, the uncon forces are definitely weaker, since they get no truly useful new items and instead pick up 6 teams of AK and RPK infantry, 4 man each, and 2 single man HQs for them. The useful items remain the same as before - 3 snipers, 2 RPGs, 1 sagger, 1 MG, plus HQ. And instead of facing a platoon, this bunch of about 45 guys gets to face 19 strykers and 125 men. Still no IEDs, while the US gets an FO as well.

The mission is hold them off and extract causalties. It turns out, in the opposite order it would appear, because I held all the objective and inflicted 42 casualties for 25 men lost, but the victory screen called that a US win. In a pig's eye.

Bugs encountered along the way - the sagger team refused to fire. It wouldn't fire from the roof of a 3 story building, where it started, with LOS to a stryker 310 meters away down a broad avenue. It wouldn't fire when repositioned the ground floor. It wouldn't fire from the building next door, from 80 meters closer. The 2 AK men fired before the end just fine, but the sagger was a giant lawn dart and utterly useless.

Can saggers only be fired from outside? Maybe in the case of the roof, intervening palms stopped it? (You'd think 3 1/2 stories in the air would handle that). In the previous, I fired it fine from a rooftop. Ah well.

The first RPG team was a hoot. Ordered to hide, it instead fired from its balcony position and hit the building it was in. Later it fired 2 more times and missed each time. Then it repositioned to a spot with a 150 meter shot at a stryker, and couldn't see it. (More on conditions, below). Finally one ran up to 45 meters away, while it was on the 3rd floor, and it didn't see it at first, then didn't fire, then was torched itself.

The second RPG team was simpler. It stalked a strkyer that had gone way ahead of the rest of the US force and was stationary on the far side of a wall, about 100 meters away. RPG team on 3rd floor with LOS, but line gray, didn't fire. So up to the roof and clear blue LOS. One round, over. Reply fire is instant and hits the RPG man.

Since the uncons started with fewer AT *rounds* than the US had *AFVs*, and the better 5 refused to fire, this naturally left the serious fight to the squishies, and made the name of the game inflicting high enough losses on them.

The conditions were light haze and dusk. This seems to have an extreme effect on visibility of infantry. Too much so. Snipers with scopes could not see infantry lying in the street 150 meters away. They could see vehicles to 400 meters, and infantry to about 80. Naturally this meant they were useless, since the strykers were buttoned continually, and at the closer range the AK would fire too, revealing the sniper location. Also, I had set them up to use long LOS lines along the streets to cut off entrance to a particular block, and then simply couldn't see anything they could hurt, far enough to do so.

It was the same with the MG team, basically. It was sighted to hit a crossroads at the apex of my defended block, about 250 meters away. Never saw a soul there. In the end I had it area fire at the location anyway. Less than 60 seconds later both team members were hit. So the ranged heavy weapons were as useless as the AT ones.

The teams came in two groups, a larger with 4x4 and a smaller with 2x4. I put the second in the objective itself as a final defense line, and in the event they were unengaged, and held it clear to the 45 minute mark, unscathed. The other team was up in the blocking position block, with the snipers and MG trying to cut the streets into said block, and both RPGs in it, behind them.

They sold themselves dear, catching several squads trying to cross into their block before opening fire. One team was shot to heck almost instantly as a result, but the Americans were butchered, too. They built up more fire, I skulked and brought up the RPGs, folly ensued, the AI crossed again under vehicle overwatch, I unveiled and shot that attempt to rags too, but only a couple of men survived it. In the end the AI sent a swarm of strykers past the position, with the last holdouts shooting up MG teams in the street etc.

Meanwhile the 3 man HQ and the AK members of the sagger team covered another road and caught some men in the open there. The snipers backstopped it all with crossing LOS lines in the long streets, but failed to get more than a few shots off at nearby passing units. The Americans ran out of time 100 meters or so short of the objective, having overrun the defended block, with the reserve formation and all 3 sniper teams intact, the rest causalties. But they took nearly 2 men with them each, despite the folly of all their supporting arms.

It was enjoyable, but it was also frustratingly difficult to get units to perform. The single biggest was the sagger being unwilling to fire. Very short visibility even for scope equipped units was another failing. There is no way Dragonov teams are going to be so put out by dusk and light haze, that they can't see men in the street 150 meters away. I'd also say the VPs are hugely off if holding objectives and inflicting nearly 2 to 1 manpower losses is a "loss", just because the 1 is a larger portion of a tiny uncon force. For that matter, the odds in "small" are ridiculously weighted for a AFV equipped attacker (this was a probe). Also, uncons should get IEDs as support weapons, routinely.

FWIW. Obviously I am still getting used to this, one man's experience, YMMV, etc.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[JasonC]

Adam - haven't played it as blue recently, but in an early patch I won it second time out as blue. First time out, sure I lost Brads to ATGMs.

Second time, I started the infantry dismounted, put the Brads on the left and fast moved for the lee of the hill, also popping smoke. One ATGM got off one shot, which missed, before I was under the cover of the hill's dead ground.

Then the infantry went over the right side hill. They spotted SPGs (poor default positioning, no doubt). Brads crested on the left, forward and back, forward and back, engaging one shooter at a time. Lost one to an ATGM.

2/3rds of the way through, 2 Brads alive on the left side hill with LOS to everything, all defending AT teams toasted. Squishies forward, AI doesn't know to hold fire, Brads hold down triggers.

Might well be different with the current patched form, though. And I don't think I was on elite back then, either.

[JasonC]

Adam - the unit info screen said 125 meters. Was the "B" model.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Adam1:

I was pretty much losing 2/3 Brad's on average just in the first 10 seconds of the scenario, plus collaterals. Then if I let the dismounts do most of the work from there I found I'd run out of men before killing all the Syrians. I never had air or arty at the time, if they had been added in since. That would have made the job quite a bit easier

I never jinked though, interesting stuff. Is that actually modeled in the game or just real life stuff?

I don't know if its modelled but its how we teach our drivers and commanders. Going in a straight line for too long makes it far too easy for the "other guy".

[gibsonm]

Originally posted by Adam1:

Yeah but running them off to the side of the hill from the get-go kinda defeats the whole context of the scenario.

Not sure if that's in response to me or not, but driving straight into the valley of death would get you sacked on any Crew Commander course that we run.

In this scenario the forward two callsigns need to move into positions that protect the route (that means off the road and up onto the hills).

Now doctrinally we require a vehicle to travel on the road to prove the route, but it certainly doesn't have to be the lead vehicle.

Also I don't use the AFV smoke unless the Tac AI fires it in response to an incoming threat. Using it in a pre-emptive manner is non doctrinal for us.

Of course without off board smoke you might say you need it but I've never had to.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JasonC:

Adam - the unit info screen said 125 meters. Was the "B" model.

Jason, just checked this as I thought you might have spotted a bug. From what I can see though, it looks like you were looking at the 125mm figure, which is the warhead size. Range is listed above it as 500-3000m, but let us know if your not seeing this. This would probably explain why you havent had much luck getting them to fire.

Just for the record I have fired them off of roof tops without walls guys. Generally these missiles are rather inaccurate thanks to their guidance system and the significant amount of training needed to use them, but I have had some luck with them.

Dan

[MikeyD]

On the more general topic of CMx1 to CMx2, over the weekend I downloaded a scenario from cmmods.com named "Small Town ME Redux.btt" I started-up the scenario and stared at it for a few seconds thinking "Why does this look so familiar? ...Oh - my - GOD!" Thelouch had meticulously recreated a CMAK town QB map that I had built years ago. Stumbling on it in CMSF was a MAJOR case of Deja Vu.

If you want to do a head-to-head comparison of CMAK and CMSF add Thelouch's "Small Town ME Redux.btt" to your scenarios list and fight a few battles over it