Bug: Trench not enough protection, infantry in open not suppressed easily enough.

[jomni]

Originally posted by KNac:

Which was each unit experience?

Also remember US markmanship, optics and infantry armor are better. Don't know for squad vs. squad firepower, but quite possible US has stronger firepower too.

Yup. I went into a long range shootout playing

Syrians vs. US... Got slaughtered at long range. Should have kept myself hidden until the right moment.

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by jep:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Us has allkinds of nice optics installed to their rifles. Those things affects much on firepower of unit, surely this is modelled in CM:SF also.

Sorry but this is blatantly wrong. When somebody shoots at that distance nice optic does not give you anything. To put it simple, US troops should not be able to defeat syrian troops. It does not matter how well trained participants are (better training does not help when your opponent do nothing but shoot you from covered position). Infact US soldiers should promptly refuse to even consider assault like this. Also, bigger firepower (Javelins etc.) does not help when your troops cannot use those weapons.

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

Experience has heavy impact. Just tried to attack with green-level troops and despite covered attackroute against small enemy force, my men didn't have much change. They took few casualities and after that i wasn't able to command them for a long time. My plan failed utterly as i expected them to act like veterans

Really, experience should be modelled better. No country would train militia if they would not work. If nothing else, they should be given experience bonus because it is easy to defend. I think same goes with optical sights. </font>

[Bradley Dick]

You know, if we went to war in 2008 with Syria all of our troops would be at least Veteran level. I myself have seen two combat tours. Many people in the military are on their third or fourth. If we shifted focus to Syria, the green troops would be pulling duty in Iraq.

[kipanderson]

Infantry attack test.

Hi,

I now have my full results in from three different tests.

In all cases the defending force was the same, a platoon of Syrian mechanised infantry less all of their AFVs. In trenches close to a village. This force was setup in the trenches in Hide mode, being given the un-Hide command (just click Hide again..) when the attackers were about 200-250m away. I just sat back and let the AI fight it out.

1) Attacked by a company of US Stryker infantry less all their AFVs. Syrians wiped-out, 35 casualties, US suffered just 15 casualties.

2) Attacked by a company of Red mechanised infantry less all their AFVs. Syrians in trenches stopped attack dead. Attacking Red infantry suppressed and suffered huge casualties. Defenders almost no casualties.

3) Attacked by a company of Red Special Forces. Same result as 2) above. Attackers stopped dead for almost no defending casualties.

There is something wrong here .

Syrian Special Forces are likely to be both of higher quality man for man and in terms of their training than “line” US infantry. (No insult to US troops… this would also be true when compared to British “line” infantry . ) The problem is that Syrians do not fire when in attack, they must be using Move, Hunt, Quick…. and so on but have no version of Assault which the US were very obviously using, and the US is putting out huge firepower.

When it comes to doctrine it is not credible that Syrian /Russian /Soviet infantry are not trained to put down fire/ suppressive fire as they attack. I have a Soviet Lessons Learnt document from December ’41 that talks of nothing but the need for firing when infantry attack. The final Soviet infantry company manual of WWII, November ’42, also makes clear the importance of suppressive fire when in the attack. Soviet post-war infantry will be trained to fire when in attack. They may not use the same routines and method of leap-frogging as the US, but be trained to fire when in attack they certainly will be.

In time Syrian infantry need to given their own from of Assault command, maybe call it Attack, where they fire, advance, and fire and so on. Maybe not with the squad split but still fire and movement going on. One can always set the experience lower for lower quality Syrian troops. But some form of command along those lines is needed.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[thewood]

I'm glad you ran the test. As I have stated in other threads, equal settings, US troops are supermen. I never thought it would be fire and movement tactics causing it, but it makes sense.

[panzermartin]

Are you sure there is no assault option for syrians? I have used it repeatedly.

[KNac]

You should try blue on blue. that way we could see the real effect of trenches and if attack:defend realistic ratios/casualties are archived.

as currently only US seems capable of attacking/firing while moving.

p.s: i'm lazy, i know

[Truppenfuhrung]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

KNac,

In CMSF we cannot check the firepower figures as in CMX1… so hard to tell.

yeah, that feature was very useful to efficiently use your firepower.

I don't know if this feature can be implemented.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Yes… I apologise… the Syrians do have Assault .

I was playing all scenarios as the defender and allowing the AI to attack. This is in many ways more worrying. As thewood posted above, it means the US forces really do have true Superman coding…. very strange …. no idea what is going on.

Well I do know in fact, by watching anyway. The Syrians just do not fire near as much as, not a fraction as much or as effectively as the US forces when assaulting. A Syrian Special Forces company should out-perform a standard US infantry company at this sort of attack but are hopeless in comparison.

The firepower delivered by Syrians when using Assault needs to increase, that delivered by US forces decrease. For example. A Republican Guard squad should deliver similar firepower to a US squad, closer than at present anyway. Remember we can always tweak to taste in the editor.

There is something odd going on…. but this particular problem really is what one must expect this short a time after release.

As we cannot see the individual firepower figures for each weapon and squad we can only guess what the problem is.

That is what troublesome customers like us are here for .

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[track]

Like I and Knack stated try it on U.S. on U.S. I cannot play the game since the latest patch (Paradox version).

It is unbeliveable bull that (if it is true) no other armies cannot do normal fire and movement maneuvers.

[jep]

There _seems_ to exist some extra patriotism on how CMSF works :confused: . I would favor red side when not absolutely certain about something because this would make CMSF a little more balanced game.

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:

I can say only what one of our officer told me. Platoon where half of men had optics (2x ACOG and 2x aimpoint per squad) was about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights. This test was conducted in meeting engagement with laser simulators, about terrain i'm not sure (either forest or open field). This is most accurate thing i've heard about effectivity of optics. If you can prove otherwise, then i will draw my words.

Obviously I cannot prove otherwise, but for me this does not make common sense. Distance is about 250 meters, desert does not provide sufficient protection against bullets, attacker leap-frog forward and defenders are well protected. For me a situation like that sounds like a suicide mission. I wonder: If platoon equipped with optics were about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights, how come every country in world does not use them? Sure they are expensive, but if they were _that effective_, every country in the world would be buying them.

I believe problem comes from CMX2 engine, which works like the world were black and white only. Does CMSF even penalize accuracy when soldiers are doing that leap-froggin. I think there is some more basic problems with infanry. For example CMSF does not allow me to properly split my squad (should be two men /team), nor can I give firing arcs to invidual soldiers.

EDIT:

Originally posted by Secondbrooks:Secondly: Having trench isn't superb thing yet (so no bonus). Terrain wasn't favoring defender in that scenario (i assume that there wasn't even bushes).

I thought that trench would provide excellent protection agaist infanry. A Iraqi trench: http://wtv-zone.com/Mary/THISWILLMAKEYOUPROUD.HTML (This seems to be some kind of recruiting site).

[ August 13, 2007, 04:58 PM: Message edited by: jep ]

[Truppenfuhrung]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

[QB]In trenches close to a village. This force was setup in the trenches in Hide mode, being given the un-Hide command (just click Hide again..) when the attackers were about 200-250m away. I just sat back and let the AI fight it out. /QB]

Assuming that the Syrian are using Ak-47, maybe 200m is to far. AK-47 are not very accurate.

Just like sub-machine gun squad in CMBB, it's only efficient at very close range.

I could be wrong...

[Secondbrooks]

Problem with Syria is also that they seem to run out of bullets sooner than US. Maybe they do conserve their fire more than US?

Even Syrian SF seems to run out of bullets very soon.

Jep: mostly militaries seems to be getting intrested in buying optics for their weapons. But well... Who has the money to do that in one night. Lasersimulators most likely will (or has) awaken most armies to this fact. Question is: How many more important things there are to invest? And how fast can low level officer, who sees the advantage of optics in combatsimulations, turns that old general's head (who has shot with iron sights all his life).

I wrote badly about that trench thing: So i try to present it like this

Dug-in platoon should be able to repel attack of company (with similar equipment, organization(?), level of personel). So:

Syrian militiaplatoon in defence can repel attack of Syrian militiacompany. But can it repel attack of superioirly better opponent, which has advantage on atleast equipement (firepower) and personel (training and experience)?

Does the 3x rule in defence need also better terrain (more camoflage + extra cover) for defender than attacker? this i don't know.

Now when attcker is far superior in atleast two terms (equipment and quality of personel), coulnd't we consider that attacking force(US) has big advantage/overpower over defender.

So basically:

1 platoon versus 2-3 companies.

This is complicated thing of which i don't have education to disguss in (atleast) english or with hard based facts.

[jomni]

Something just occurred to me...

Trench warfare was at it's prime during World War 1.

Beyond WW1, is it still effective?

[thelmia]

US infantry are better, because they are trained to a US standard. The Syrians are trained to a much lower standard, 'Special Forces' or no. There's no worldwide standard for infantry training. The Iraqi "Republican Guard" were better than the Iraqi Army, but far inferior to normal US Army units. Just having a fancy name does not an elite force make

Now, I expect they would fight and die bravely. It's just that Syria does not have the resources, leadership, or tradition to put up an infantry force equal to the US Army in quality. Hence the sneaky tactics, IEDs, etc. That's a rational response to their inequality in training and leadership.

[jomni]

Originally posted by thelmia:

US infantry are better, because they are trained to a US standard. The Syrians are trained to a much lower standard, 'Special Forces' or no. There's no worldwide standard for infantry training. The Iraqi "Republican Guard" were better than the Iraqi Army, but far inferior to normal US Army units. Just having a fancy name does not an elite force make

Now, I expect they would fight and die bravely. It's just that Syria does not have the resources, leadership, or tradition to put up an infantry force equal to the US Army in quality. Hence the sneaky tactics, IEDs, etc. That's a rational response to their inequality in training and leadership.

Another factor is the size of the soldier's payroll.

[thelmia]

The volunteer force does pay better, but the decisive factor is people making it a career rather than an unpleasant couple of years that must be endured. Soldiering is a trade, and professionals will do better than some 18-20 year olds randomly drafted and given some rudimentary training. It's the same as anything else- computer programming, car repair, whatever. Just putting on the clothes and tools doesn't magically give you skills.

Well- trained soldiers are not supermen, but if they didn't have an advantage in a tactical simulation there would be something wrong. The disparity in leadership and training should be apparent. And it is, which is exactly what we'd expect.

If we had the US Army vs. the British Army or the Budeswehr, then it would be practically even.

As the player, your own tactical leadership is a much larger variable than the quality of your units. I have been drubbed by Syrians, and have done well with them. Making the enemy fight on your terms is the principle that applies here.

[ August 14, 2007, 02:55 AM: Message edited by: thelmia ]

[KNac]

I don't agree.

Experience level should do for this, and should be standard under any circusntance. Scenario designers (and players too) must have a scale to compare each unit, and not the differences to be hardcoded (appart of obvious hardware differences, weaponry & equipoment I mean).

If you want to model poor training in syrian army then make the units "green" or "conscripts", and if you want to model US superior professional training then make the units "veteran". This is how it works.

So US regular = Syrian regular (or, in effect, whatever army regular), TO GAME EFFECTS (off course).

[RT North Dakota]

Couple of things.

1. Suppression is a function of the fear of harm. You are suppressed when you fail to shoot, move, communicate and observe because you fear harm. Most troops are suppressed when round pass within about 1m of them. For a good explanation, google EFFECTS INFANTRY OWEN

2. Combat marksmanship is appalling. The UK recently did a trial that showed that soldiers who were deemed proficient shots could not consistently hit a man-sized target, under stress, till it was as close as 50-75m!

3. Most Armies outside of NATO, Israel and a few others are utterly appalling. Even thier SF. Middel Eastern armies are particularly bad. Only worse are African. - >1,500 armed Somalis couldn't wipe out a US Company in Mogadishu. - outnumbered greater than 10:1.

[RT North Dakota]

Couple of things.

1. Suppression is a function of the fear of harm. You are suppressed when you fail to shoot, move, communicate and observe because you fear harm. Most troops are suppressed when round pass within about 1m of them. For a good explanation, google EFFECTS INFANTRY OWEN

2. Combat marksmanship is appalling. The UK recently did a trial that showed that soldiers who were deemed proficient shots could not consistently hit a man-sized target, under stress, till it was as close as 50-75m!

3. Most Armies outside of NATO, Israel and a few others are utterly appalling. Even thier SF. Middel Eastern armies are particularly bad. Only worse are African. - >1,500 armed Somalis couldn't wipe out a US Company in Mogadishu. - outnumbered greater than 10:1.

[Conan121171]

When I was in the German Army,

i shoot with the good old G3 Assault Rifle onto Targets in range of 250 meters.

Even with low experience I hit most targets at that range.

But I think to, in the heat of the battle with no experience, Bullets flying all around, with the screams of the wounded, it is very hard to hit an ducked, ZickZack-running, moving Target.

Also, I think the so called "middle East special Forces" simply have better equipment and Moral, but not realy better training.

[JasonC]

First, the AK is not an SMG. SMGs fire pistol ammo, the AK fires a carbine caliber round with 2-3 times more muzzle energy than pistol ammo. The effective range in good hands is up to 400 yards, and at 200 yards any competent shooter can hit things reliably. Bullet drop is 5 inches at that range, and shot groups 3 inches. That isn't as accurate as a full rifle of course, but it is plenty to hit multiple man sized targets in the open.

Second, the US wins wars because it doesn't do things like charge entrenched infantry with automatic weapons using nothing but its own infantry. If it did, no special uber coded anything would save its men's behinds. We use capital - major pieces of armor, on call firepower. (Body armor might help in this situation, as an example of that. Just having eaten your wheaties will not).

Third, specific example of Somalia, the opponents were not trained soldiers, the Americans had major fire support and would not have lasted the night without it, the Americans spent most of the fight stationary in building cover not charging entrenched men over open ground. And oh, the US still took over 100 casualties (UN allies also took 13); most were WIA because US medical is good.

Fourth, optics are not that expensive (sure you can spend $500 on one; you can also get a vanilla one with more like $50), not compared to the guns themselves ($100-300) or their ammunition. Yes they improve performance. They require longer training to use properly, restrict field of view which can reduce sitch awareness in the untrained, are harder to maintain and easier to break in the field than the weapon itself, etc.

Many armies would still be vastly improved by fielding more of them and can afford to do so. Armies often don't do things they could. It'd be a lot more effective to buy a small number of smart 120mm mortar rounds from Sweden than a large number of dumb ones from the eastern bloc, but that doesn't mean it happens.

But no, you don't need a scope to hit things at 200 yards. Remotely. You need them to hit things more reliably at 400 or 500, and they help at 200 to 400. But help is not need. Personally, I can miss with iron sights at 300 (talking firing range, to be sure) but not inside it, against a man sized target. (It is bullet drop that makes longer shots harder with carbine calibers).

A platoon like that has something like 6000 rounds to throw. If you suppress them or have cover or both, you might outshoot them, but just standing in front of them in the open within effective range, you'd lose. Unless body armor is supposedly saving you even when hit.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by KNac:

I don't agree.

Experience level should do for this, and should be standard under any circusntance. Scenario designers (and players too) must have a scale to compare each unit, and not the differences to be hardcoded (appart of obvious hardware differences, weaponry & equipoment I mean).

If you want to model poor training in syrian army then make the units "green" or "conscripts", and if you want to model US superior professional training then make the units "veteran". This is how it works.

So US regular = Syrian regular (or, in effect, whatever army regular), TO GAME EFFECTS (off course).

That idea left the building in CMBB when regular pre-1944 Red Army was made to suffer longer command delays.

All the best

Andreas

[KNac]

But I think this was due to the worst C2 Red Army had, or a different way of dealing with the CoC, right? Or was it an abstraction of inside-squad training?

Oh, one of the first things I noticed is that there are not any delays anylonger, for any of the both sides, this was intentional? Which was the decission? Is a colateral effect of RT playing/processing? Anyone knows?

An other interesting idea would have been adding an other parameter to unit stats, separating training and experience. Training would make things like marksmanship better, while experience would tell how the units behave under pressure, and how well they move around in the battlefield.

[acrashb]

Originally posted by jep:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Secondbrooks:optics (2x ACOG and 2x aimpoint per squad) was about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights..

Obviously I cannot prove otherwise, but for me this does not make common sense. Distance is about 250 meters,

[...]

If platoon equipped with optics were about twice as much effective than platoon with plain ironsights, how come every country in world does not use them? Sure they are expensive, but if they were _that effective_, every country in the world would be buying them.

</font>