Comments on Marines Manual

[M1A1TC]

....dug in Armor Co. That's more like just a couple A-10's, Apache's, or anything that tank plinks. No reason to waste the time to move a Battalion into place.

Well, yeah, if you have CAS. I was talking about just armor versus armor. I had to defend a hill with my tank and a Bradley platoon support against a small task force company size. We wooped their behinds

[SgtMuhammed]

Actually what I meant to convey was that it is particularly challenging if the T90s are stationary and the M1s moving. Not necessarily dug in. With T72s it was possible to run a platoon of M1s along and still have a reasonable chance to win against even stationary units. Don't try this with the T90.

I found that 3 to 2 odds (T90 to M1) is a pretty even fight, all other things being equal. That is in a realistic setting, in a firing range type scenario the M1s have a greater advantage due to their still superior armor.

Trust me, you will not be dissappointed in the T90.

[Peter Panzer]

A few quick questions:

• Will the new US Army AFV's in v.1.10 automatically be applied to existing scenarios with the appropriate "Equipment" settings when the latest version of the game is installed?

I am hoping to avoid having to manually reorganize BLUFOR units in all of my scenarios to get the desired force mix after v1.10 is available.

• Will a comprehensive v1.10 "fixes list" be part of the USMC download?

The new models and TO&E are very impressive, but it is the improvements to the game mechanics that interest me the most.

Thanks for any clarification.

[TheVulture]

A few quick questions:

• Will the new US Army AFV's in v.1.10 automatically be applied to existing scenarios with the appropriate "Equipment" settings when the latest version of the game is installed?

I am hoping to avoid having to manually reorganize BLUFOR units in all of my scenarios to get the desired force mix after v1.10 is available.

All the new AFVs are in marine formations only as I understand it, and aren't available for regular army (CM:SF base) formations one way or the other. The only change of what is available to existing formations that I noticed is the introduction of the t-90 for Syrian republican guard formations, and for those there is a new 'excellent' equipment level that doesn't exist in the base game. So existing scenarios won't include them since they won't have the appropriate equipment level selected.

(It's also the only reasonable way to do it without causing major incompatibility bugs and problems I suspect).

[Moon]

Will a comprehensive v1.10 "fixes list" be part of the USMC download?

Yes, there is a comprehensive ReadMe file.

[Battlefront.com]

TheVulture,

All the new AFVs are in marine formations only as I understand it

Fortunately, you understand incorrectly As a "thank you" to you guys for putting up with the issues of the original release, we've added some Army stuff for everybody (Marines Module not necessary). Specifically we added:

- M1A1SA TUSK Abrams tank

- M1A2 SEP TUSK Abrams tank

- M2A3 IFV Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M3A3 CFV Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M7A3 BFIST Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M1114 HMMV armed with Mk.19 grenade launcher

To answer Peter Panzer's question, these vehicles do not appear "automatically" in existing scenarios because they are separate vehicles. Meaning, you have to specifically purchase them instead of current vehicles being automatically upgraded. That's because these are not "upgrades" but rather specific variants, therefore it's not assumed someone would want their M1A2 SEP to be "upgraded" to the heavier TUSK version.

Steve

[SgtMuhammed]

Think of it this way. At least you only have to update your scenario once. Nothing like trying to create a campaign while Steve is handing you new TO&Es every day or two.

[Cougar_DK]

Not everyone is runing 1920x1200 though, and we have to accomodate all people out there. Since the manual pages are "static" images, it's impossible to have them scale with your browser resolution, so we have to go with (nearly) the lowest value.

The online manuals are not intended for cover-to-cover reading anyway, more for quick fact-checking and updates. The "real" thing are still the printed manuals that ship with the hardgoods when you purchase the game.

Ok thanks for the response Moon.

[dan/california]

There was some mention of a "suprise" a while back. Is it still a suprise?

[TheVulture]

TheVulture,

Fortunately, you understand incorrectly As a "thank you" to you guys for putting up with the issues of the original release, we've added some Army stuff for everybody (Marines Module not necessary). Specifically we added:

- M1A1SA TUSK Abrams tank

- M1A2 SEP TUSK Abrams tank

- M2A3 IFV Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M3A3 CFV Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M7A3 BFIST Bradley with explosive reactive armor (ERA)

- M1114 HMMV armed with Mk.19 grenade launcher

To answer Peter Panzer's question, these vehicles do not appear "automatically" in existing scenarios because they are separate vehicles. Meaning, you have to specifically purchase them instead of current vehicles being automatically upgraded. That's because these are not "upgrades" but rather specific variants, therefore it's not assumed someone would want their M1A2 SEP to be "upgraded" to the heavier TUSK version.

Steve

Well then, I am very pleased to be wrong.

Got to love the battlefront guys.

[Taki]

The "Diamond", T90 is missing. That will be the Unit that everyone is waiting for. Balanced Battles Blue vs. Red in QB and on well Made 1vs1 Scenarios.

But thx Steve and the Team. That are good news.

Ill wait for Patch 1.10 and see if the Gamemechanics are worth a buy. After CMSF release i got a bit suspicious and try first, then buy.

[Battlefront.com]

Dan,

The extra vehicles are the surprise, which might no longer be a surprise

Taki,

No problemos! We've always been a fan of try before you buy anyway, so no worries there.

Just so you guys know, the v1.10 patch will take a few days beyond the Marines release. Need to build installers and test them. A demo for v1.10 will come out sometime after. We haven't started work on it yet so I can't say when it will be ready. However, that really only matters for people who don't have CM:SF since everybody who has it can play v1.10 for real.

Steve

[Peter Panzer]

Yes, there is a comprehensive ReadMe file.

Thanks Moon.

It has been hinted that the list of fixes in v1.10 is somewhat substantial - I am very eager to see it for myself! To confirm, v1.10 is included as part of the USMC download, right?

To answer Peter Panzer's question, these vehicles do not appear "automatically" in existing scenarios because they are separate vehicles.

As always, thanks for taking the time Steve.

Alas, the sun will still rise. Frankly, I was thrilled to see the addition of the US Army IFVs. Especially welcome is the ERA equipped M2/M3's - anything to potentially take some of the edge off of the tandem warhead stuff floating around.

At least you only have to update your scenario once.

True - better to know prior to release so I can delete my current force selections and have a clean slate ready for the "first team" hardware.

Congratulations to all of you for wrapping up the first module. Like the others, I am looking forward to giving it a good shake down.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, the Marines Module comes with a v1.10 installer built into it. What we are working on next is a stripped down installer that just does v1.10 and not the Marines stuff. Should only take a couple of days to make and test before we can release it.

As for the long awaited fix list, we'll put that out as soon as we release the Marines Module. And yes, it is substantial. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of pleasant surprises on there too.

Steve

[Peter Panzer]

...the Marines Module comes with a v1.10 installer built into it.

...yes, it is substantial. I'm sure there are going to be a lot of pleasant surprises on there too.

Roger that.

[Roter Stern]

Noticed two errors in the new Marines Manual - if these have already been identified, I apologize, haven't had a lot of time lately to read the forum:

Page 20

Last sentence of the "TOW2" Section erroneously refers to the weapon as "Mk19" - clearly a copy-paste from the "Dismounted Mk19 AGL" Section immediately above it.

Page 26

The contents of the first paragraph of the "BMP-3" Section are almost entirely repeated by the second paragraph - i.e. the bit about the 100mm gun and it's ability to fire the Arkan missiles.

Can't comment on spelling - since if it were not for spell checkers, I'd be legally illiterate

Other than that, the manual was an engaging read - not something most manuals can brag about.

[Lampshade111]

I know the Marines currently use mostly up-armored HMMWVs (M1114, M1121, M1151, M1152, and so on) but the manual mentions the M1046 and the previous section part implies the similar M1043 or M1044 are also in the game. So does this mean we have unarmored HMMWVs too?

*Note that the M1043/44 and M1045/46 have some very limited armor, which is only there to prevent spalling, and protects some areas from small shell fragments.

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the corrections!

Lampshade111,

The designations are a bit confusing to us, so perhaps we got it wrong? The problem is that under the old designation system there were different M numbers for the dedicated armored variants. But now everything in theater has armor on it, perhaps updated several times over. That is what we are simulating. The question, I guess, is that since everything has armor on it, and might have started out life as M1043 or M1121, but no longer is within those specs, what do they call it? Recent TO&E still specifies the older M numbers.

Steve

[Taki]

Thx for the Reply Steve. Ill wait for that 1.10 Patch. Maybe i will buy the Marines Modul then.

[Flanker15]

I noticed a new icon for RPG thermo rockets on the back cover, does this mean we'll be seeing them now?

[MikeyD]

Hmmm... 32 page full color manual for "just" a module is pretty darned impressive. I notice all the comments on the heavy equipment but not much on the REAL difference-makers in the game. You'll see the occasional T90 but there's going to be M32 grenade launchers and SMAWs and LAW rockets scattered aaaall over the place! Marines are definitely not going to be your everyday Stryker unit! I"m alot more interested in the old Marine bolt action M40A3 sniper rifle in the game than the T90 - as nice as the T90 is.

[Taki]

I like the new Manual. Especially what the New Enchantments on the Tanks do. As i remember when i read the CMSF Manual that there wherent so much Tactics per unit explained. Thats what i like the Most about the New Manual.

What would intrest me even more? How much the new Systems on the T-90 and other Units mean in Game Terms. Like Spotting + Reaction Time of Tanks and such things.

Problem for me with modern Stuff is that i dont get a rough Feeling of how the Equipment is in realation to each other. How much outdated is a T-72 against an T-90?

Yes, i can try in Game but Explanations to the Diffrent systems (like you do in the AT Section and Weapon Sections) for Tank Equipment would be real nice.

Like

1. How far is the Effectiv Range fior Diffrent Weapons?

2. Do they have AP Capability?

3. How much is this?

On some Points in the Manual you do that very well. Like on the M16 Explanation.

The Ingame Hud Section with the Graphs (wich Ammo can Penetrate what Armour) is a nice try but i really never used it. Its confusing me more then it helps me. A bit preciser system equal to that one would help. Some Tooltips would be fine too.

So much for my Manual Reading.... and some HUD Tips for the Armour Values of Units.

Greetz

Taki

[The_Red_Rage]

The difference between modern units tends to be much more subtle than WW2 equivalents. Upgraded T-55 is quite capable of killing M1 (modern day Tiger) giving a first shot opportunity, so in game terms everything with a cannon should be treated like it will be able to defeat all of your armored assets.

I find that looking at real life counterparts of vihicles feautured in CMSF helps immensely to better use your assets. For example, everything over 12.7mm will penetrate BMP side and rear armor - it works exactly the same in the game, forcing the player to either only use dismouted BMPs for fire support or not to expose rear and side armor to HMG fire. Mostly it's all common sense and knowledge of tactical applications of real life systems.

[MikeyD]

"Like

1. How far is the Effective Range for Diffrent Weapons?

2. Do they have AP Capability?"

The way I heard choices for the manual explained, this is the "new millennium". BFC couldn't hope a shoe-horn a tenth of the pertinent info on weapons into the manual as can be found in 10 seconds by Googling. Just recently I went from a total know-nothing to a minor expert of the Marine sniper rifle thanks to a google search! Some of the more esoteric data being requested mostly makes the difference in-game between a 100% catastrophic kill and a 100% catastrophic kill. That blazing BMP-1 doesn't much care about the serial numbers of the TOW missile that just hit it.

[Battlefront.com]

Regarding the new RPG icon... the different types of RPG rounds were always there, but we only had one icon representing all round types. We now differentiate between anti-personnel and anti-tank. However, I hope that the next patch we can have a 1:1 iconic representation for all of the rounds.

Red Rage is very much spot on about things being VERY different now compared to WWII. Any main battle tank in the game now can pretty much kill any other main battle tank at fairly long ranges, depending on circumstances of course. In WWII there were many matchups which just didn't pan out that way, if for no other reason than it usually took 3-4 shots to score a hit at even medium ranges. And that's not even including the ATGM factor or medium class cannon fire (25mm or so), especially if it is a Bradley.

Put another way... the lethality factor of modern day weaponry doesn't leave too much gray area. If you can hit you generally can kill. And since accuracy of even the rudimentary stuff is pretty good, the chances of a hit are pretty good.

This isn't the case in WWII, therefore we're assessing what sorts of things we can do to give you guys a better idea of various capabilities of different units. Not to worry... we've been taking tons of notes over the last 2 years (i.e. when we were testing too) and have a very good idea what to do. We just have to figure out how to squeeze it all into our schedule!

Another good point is that the information on the Internet now is VAST and quite varied. Heck, even Wikipedia has more information on most weapons systems than most people need to know. Making a manual that does resembles the size of a metropolitan phone book is not a goal of ours

Steve