Bimmer Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 Uploaded to CMMods. Comments always appreciated. Enjoy. BACKGROUND: You are the commander of 2nd Platoon, B Company. Your battalion is conducting operations across a wide area, control of which is being contested by local insurgents. The area is not located near any critical assets or supply routes, so it has been at the bottom of command's priority list. Your force is spread thin, with a huge area to cover. Resources are limited, so your company is split into patrol groups. You are commanding a patrol consisting of your 2nd Platoon plus the 4th (Weapons) Platoon. Your patrol has so far been uneventful, moving along wooded ridgelines that dominate the open valleys of this hilly region. You have found no evidence of recent enemy activity in the area. You stop as the sound of an approaching helicopter at low level. From the sound you can tell that it is having engine problems. It roars directly overhead, and you can see that it is trailing smoke. Moments later you hear the crushing sounds of it crashing in the valley to your northeast. Moving toward the treeline, you can see that it is an MH-60 SOCOM bird. It is partially intact, and several of the occupants are alive and working to remove wounded from the wreckage. At the same time, your platoon sergeant points to the ridgeline across the valley. Looking through your binoculars you can see several armed men making their way down a dry wash toward the crash site. What now, Lieutenant? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
General_solomon Posted October 17, 2007 Share Posted October 17, 2007 sounds good, I'll let you know what happens. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Law&Order Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 I like these small setups and the story with it really helps for me. I had a minor defeat the first time, however strange things happened, probably bugs. Most of the squads didnt fire rounds even when directed to specifically fire at an enemy squad. Distance was about 400-600m but they should be able to at least engage that, I think. They were simply spotting, and spotting, while the clearly already had identified the enemy squad as it was targetable. When I brought them closer to the action they did a token effort but nothing lethal or full force. Not sure if its this specific scenario or bugs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bimmer Posted October 18, 2007 Author Share Posted October 18, 2007 Range is a significant issue, given the size of the map. I tested a lot of different approaches to this scenario, and getting the troops to fire at point targets at very long ranges is difficult. Area fire will often work when specifically targeted fire will not. The manual lists engagement ranges against point targets as 400m for the M4, 600m for the M249 SAW, and 800m for the M240B MMG. I found the AI does not tend to engage until somewhat under these maximum ranges. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinnessman Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Indeedy. I originally had the idea of leaving the two M240 teams in the edge of the woods that they started in and providing long-range fire. Ended up having to move them up a fair bit before they engaged. SPOILER > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The terrain isn't as flat as it looks. I sent my infantry squad to the crash site and split it into two fireteams. One fireteam went to the small rise on the right flank, and promptly lost every man except the SAW gunner. He then went on a rampage and single-handedly wiped out about 15-20 enemies from his position atop the rise. The M240 teams took a bit of maneuvering before they decided to open up, but as it turned out that meant they had plenty of ammo left for the (sneaky!) technical attack. Said technicals and their accompanying infantry recieved the full benefits of the 7.62mm Pension Plan. A victory, but it was pretty close for a while. Good scenario overall, big thumbs up from me! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 ultimate practioner = ultimate practitioner ? Regards, Gunz 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinnessman Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 Originally posted by GunzAbeam: ultimate practioner = ultimate practitioner ? Regards, Gunz Duly corrected, thanks - deliberate mistake, honest guv 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dennis50 Posted October 18, 2007 Share Posted October 18, 2007 ok Regards, Gunz 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.