The Javelin problem

[Scipio]

Steve, I agree that many things as you described them are outside of the CM scope and that most problems could be solved by the scenario designer. The workarounds, especially the randomly marked buildings, are a very good idea, too.

But there are still some important questions open: how does the calculations for the victory conditions work, such as casualties, ammo usage, condition?

[Secondbrooks]

Originally posted by SgtMuhammed:

They come in easy to carry party packs that you can pick up at the local truck stop.

Sorry. Pretty strong headache ain't best thing for already low IQ, so:

Does this mean that there are large amounts of missiles in supply? like 30-50 missiles per squad (=quidance unit)? If this is the case, then i feel that i'm getting highly jealous.

[Combatintman]

Scipio,

Thanks for posing the question - I have always been rubbish at maths but as a budding scenario and campaign designer I would like a good steer on this. I understand conceptually how it works but would appreciate some guidance - because I think understanding this is key to coming up with balanced missions/campaigns. Unit and preserve objectives I'm all over like a rash but I do struggle with the rest of it.

[Battlefront.com]

Secondbrooks,

SgtMuhammed was trying to be funny As far as I know the supply of missiles hasn't been an issue. At least no more so than anything else that needs to be hauled into Iraq and then moved around to get where it's going to be. Having said that, if every company sized unit in real life used Javelins like people do in CM:SF I'm sure the supply would be extremely short.

Scipio,

I honestly don't remember how that bit of the game works, so I've asked Charles for a refresher I don't recall any special consideration for Javelin or other ammo types, even though now that you mention it that does sound like a good idea.

The good and bad thing about CMx2's far more powerful scenario tools is that you can do just about anything you want if you can wrap your mind around the myriad of options. Combatintman is one of those guys who points out that the downside is that there are a myriad of options

Steve

[Combatintman]

Steve - I have no problem with the options - I'm just too dumb to understand them!

[leakyD]

Perhaps, as an additional option, a checkbox(s) could be added to the Quick Battle choices:

ON: Standard, or "TO&E" Supply

OFF: "Realistic" supply, with variable shortages.

I think this could help alleviate the issues of FULL AMMO QB's, and help those wishing to play these kind of environments without going through the time of creating a custom scenario/campaign.

There'd have to be a LOT of programming of the various variables, so, not sure if it's a worthwhile effort at the moment...but, it'd sure be a nice feature...

As a method of force "equalization", perhaps have a QB where Blue has "realistic" ammo and Red has "Normal/TO&E". That'd be interesting, for sure...

From my experience, most units are rarely FULLY supplied. There are peak moments of FULL supply, but for the most part, it's "STFU and make due with what you got."

[Pandur]

i find it quiet funny that when you read clausewitz´s book "vom kriege", book one, chapter one, point 3-10 i think, you have exactly the reasons why we cant get around to shoot off insane amounts of javelins and the like in just one go.

at least it gives one a good idea

said that, i think the idea to give the US a "realistic" supplie option(however it is called in the end) is not all too meaningfull as we have that already, more or less.

as i wrote here on page 1, you can set the ammo level of US vehicles to "adequat" wich has enough ammo for the vehicle but reduced ammo in the vehicle for passangers(since 1.08 i think). and i also think the javelins are taken into account there. means you probably just get 1 or 2 per vehicle. never tried it out though.

means that already is a "realistic" supply option id say.

the idea to make a point in the AAR/endscreen where you get to see how much high tech weaponary you have used up would be great. if its another option to tie points too it could help "a lot". means you get 900 whatever points for "not" useing a javelin, you got 9 javelins, so in this simple example one javelin would "cost" 100 victory points.

that would be a nice addition.

[leakyD]

Originally posted by Pandur:

as i wrote here on page 1, you can set the ammo level of US vehicles to "adequat" wich has enough ammo for the vehicle but reduced ammo in the vehicle for passangers(since 1.08 i think).

Yup, that can be done in SCENARIOS and CAMPAIGNS, but not QUICK BATTLEs.

Unless you know a SCENARIO/CAMPAIGN is designed w/r/t/ ammo levels, you have to deal with the "vanilla"/"standard" TO&E ammo variable.

So, the suggestion was an option to add this variable to QB's.... to add the supply variable for those not wishing to take (or having) the time to design scenarios that take supply into consideration.

The idea of being penalized for using various ammo should be treaded lightly, I think.

In certain circumstances, it may be justified to use a javelin (or 2!) to take out a sniper.

If the mission calls for timely movement to an objective, and said sniper is holding up a whole company of infantry, the unit shouldn't be punished for this weapon. It was the right tool/weapon used to accomplish the mission.

I understand the concept behind limiting "over-use" of ammo...and, yes, *something* should be implemented...it just has to be thought through, if greater realism is the end goal.

[Pandur]

hm, i find quick battles that broken, you dont need any more options for it currently. i would be interessted to have it after a new QB system is in place, wich is realy needed.

i find myself, sometimes for half an houer, constantly opening QB´s to see the force messed up like, 4 forward observers and 4 "UAZ" without any arty module against 150 man with real IVF´s and tanks. the time it takes until you get a meaningfull QB on a menaingfull map is insane.

mind you when i take a BLUE vs. RED QB its not too hard as you squish nearly all there could be as blue, but i play REDonRED QB´s 90% of the time, and its a pain.

now, i feel we need some sort of cherry pikcing befor any more QB options are in order.

The idea of being penalized for using various ammo should be treaded lightly, I think.

In certain circumstances, it may be justified to use a javelin (or 2!) to take out a sniper.

If the mission calls for timely movement to an objective, and said sniper is holding up a whole company of infantry, the unit shouldn't be punished for this weapon. It was the right tool/weapon used to accomplish the mission.

we forgett that this is not iraq i guess. its semi conventional syria 2008 here. and i guess a whole company isnt stopable by a lone sniper that easy "if" you dont poo yourself about a casualtie.

so if you need 1 or 2 of 9 javelins like in my example, you used up 100 or 200 points. thats a cost you have to take, no punishment. id say you get punished when the enemy can "force" you into useing 5, 6 or up to all 9. that makes you loose points big time, but just 100 or 200, thats a cost you have to pay for less casualties, but not more.

and in the end, if a scenario designer assignes "no" point value to the objective you can still simulate a afghanistan or iraq type scenario where a "man" would be more worth than a javelin again.

thats how i see it.