Marine Campaign, 3rd Mission *SPOILER ALERT*

[Wuehlmaus]

Wow, what a mission. Made every single cent of CS:SF and Marines worth it. Great balanced teams, no overdominating javeline teams.

*

*

*

*

*

*

*

The first BTRs easily defended with two squads in ambush mode. Then sent them on a counter-counter-attack on the left flank for whooping up the remaining attacker. Bad idea, ended up right in the spawn area of the second wave.

Next try: BTRs defended with one squad, one LAW remaining. Send a second squad split into two anti tank teams into the houses to reinforce the first squad.

Then the nightmare approached. 3 T-62, not just rushing forward but probing in a stacked formation. The first one finally passed the first house and two rockets one in the side. Boom. The following T-62 immediately suppressed that squad with the main gun, luckily the outer wall held up the round.

Then reinforcement spawned. I send forward another four anti-tank teams. On the far right I was able to put the only javelin team on the observation post that took care of the most far behind tank. The tank in the middle was already out-of-sight.

That left one. Despite the looses it continued forward. Came into crossfire of 5 teams that had amo left and were in line-of-fire. Two AAV were able to provide Mk-19 fire to distorb the vision. It took one minute until the tank was done. All that hamering with LAWs, Mk-19 grenads exploding on the ERP. That was intense.

Great work, Battlefront ;-)

[Darkmage]

those T-62s cost me dearly 14 KIA, 20 WIA. Couldn't touch them until reinforcement arrived. Had some good fun sneaking my SMAW team around in the trees and sniping out APCs.

[Secondbrooks]

Javelin-team took out 2 T-62s but sadly wasn't able to get last one. Which alone already was real trouble. It sucked over 15 rockets from AT-4s and M72s + some SMAW rounds from front and sides, basically everything was broken but 115mm cannon and 7.62mm MG and it didnt' give up (was still fighting back when mission ended)

Bit panic arose as both my APCs + several teams refilling ammo-stock (AT-weapons mainly) were in valley while T-62 was speeding full speed at that valley Yup it got another of APCs.

I lost about 10-20 men against that T-62, many of them dead. Rest of fight costed me about 5 wounded.

EDIT: I cheated a bit, and reloaded game. I hate it when something just spawns on map within effective range of my men and right away starts to engage (wiped out almost whole platoon).

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I too found the T-62s absurdly difficult to kill in this mission. One T-62 took at least two M136s, three SMAWs, literally 10+ LAWs (mostly to the flank, to boot!) and a metric ton of rifle grenades before I surrounded it with 30+ Marines chucking hand grenades at it. By this time I was completely out of AT weapons, and there was another T-62 alive, so I had to repeat the process, this time with (I counted) 46 Marines. Ballsy fellows, but it should have not needed to happen, I felt.

[Darkmage]

I think that the fact your squads aren't packed with javelins mean you def have to consider AT defence more seriously. Instead of being able to just engage armour on the fly with any squad you have to hand when playing with regular army troops.

[Moon]

I think that the fact your squads aren't packed with javelins mean you def have to consider AT defence more seriously. Instead of being able to just engage armour on the fly with any squad you have to hand when playing with regular army troops.

That pretty much sums up the base idea of the scenario - it's to highlight one of the major differences between Marines and US Army formations. With the usual allotment of Javs the typical US Army platoon would have made mince meat out of those T-62 the moment they appeared. This scenario is supposed to make you work a little harder to take out those three measly, almost antique, tanks...

[slug88]

To me that scenario mainly highlights why they developed the Javelin

[JP76er]

That pretty much sums up the base idea of the scenario - it's to highlight one of the major differences between Marines and US Army formations. With the usual allotment of Javs the typical US Army platoon would have made mince meat out of those T-62 the moment they appeared. This scenario is supposed to make you work a little harder to take out those three measly, almost antique, tanks...

I liked it for just those reasons. having to maneuver around to get a good flank shot. It definitely shows the different approaches to armor. I used the naval arty on them & knocked out 1. I then used a squad split into 3 teams plus a SMAW team & took out the other two. I definitely took a hurting to do it though. Excellent module so far!

[Piecekeeper]

I keep coming back to the mission where you choose road. I failed in this mission and the mission after i got an minor victory but came back to the "choose road mission again". Is this supposed to happen? same mission several times?

[Roter Stern]

To me that scenario mainly highlights why they developed the Javelin

Indeed, however the virtually unlimited number of Javs a Stryker Coy carries is what made me hate playing Blue-on-Red on the first place. Even when you're not on the receiving end of the Hand of God, for multiplayer purposes that weapon is just not right.

That's why I find it very refreshing playing as the Marines - the added tactical challenge of only having a few Javs is very nice. That said I'm pleasantly surprised at the range and accuracy of the AT-4 and the SMAW in the hands of the Marines … perhaps one of the reasons the Army units need all of those Point-Click-You-Die weapons is because they can't hit the broad side of a barn with their unguided AT assets?

[Moon]

Piecekeeper:

I keep coming back to the mission where you choose road. I failed in this mission and the mission after i got an minor victory but came back to the "choose road mission again". Is this supposed to happen? same mission several times?

Yes. Check out the campaign flow at the bottom of this page:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=209&Itemid=307

[Piecekeeper]

Piecekeeper:

Yes. Check out the campaign flow at the bottom of this page:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=209&Itemid=307

Why? what are the requirements for moving to next map?

[RCmarine]

Also had trouble with the last T-62. Javelin team took out 2, but one had already reached the base of the hill and was out of LOS of the Javelin. My infantry squad immobilised it there with an AT-4, but it sat there and blasted anything that came into view. Shrugged off numerous AT-4 hits and I couldn't get my Javelin team over there before Syrians surrendered. Of my 30 casualties, this tank accounted for about 2/3's of them. Fun scenario!

[Homo ferricus]

STILL SPOILERS FROM MISSION THREE!!!!!!!

*

*

*

*

Well, i was well aware of the new lack of AT assets, and there was nothing but ammo on my mind in regards to my AT teams, especially when the armor shows up. I actually ended up not using a single LAW/AT-4 (well, actually one squad did use one AT-4 on some infantry), i threw all the smaw i had at them, including HEDP/HE. Then, when reinforcements arrived, all i did was shuffle AT teams back and forth from nearby AAVs for resupply, thats when i really got the chance to get the lead out.

Or in this case, the HEAT out... i guess. Not to bad either, i expected much more brutal results but finished with 11 KIA and 10 WIA on the first try.

[Piecekeeper]

Piecekeeper:

Yes. Check out the campaign flow at the bottom of this page:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=209&Itemid=307

Im still stuck between those 2 missions. I get a defeat in the first where you choose road ( A victory in other words,you are supposed to get that do you?). In the second i get a minor victory. And then im back again....WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO GET to get through to the next mission?

[JonS]

Win. Well.

Otherwise you'll keep joggling between the routes, looking for a way forward.

[Battlefront.com]

The main problem with those T-62, as I myself found out , is that they have ERA on them. While the SMAWs have a decent chance of cutting through, it's the Javelins that were really designed to counter ERA. AT-4s and M72A3s just aren't up for it. If any of you did kill with those weapons you must have either got in a lucky shot where there was no ERA *or* managed to hit a spot where the ERA had already been blown off. In other words, a VERY lucky shot!

I also enjoyed stalking the buggers while I mowed down their other units with small arms and mortar fire. But until the Jav team got into the fight it was pretty ugly on the left there. Oh, and one time I played (I tested this one a few times) my Jav team lost one guy early on the way over to a firing position. When it finally got into position it was spotted and nailed by a 120mm direct hit. Damn!

Steve

[Martin Krejcirik]

Piecekeeper:

Yes. Check out the campaign flow at the bottom of this page:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=209&Itemid=307

I don't get it. I'm at phase III of the flow diagram. Whatever result of Route recce mission, I go to Objective Pooh mission (not in the diagram) and when I fail in that, I go back to Route recce. I have yet to win the Pooh mission, but that looks like the only way forward.

[Moon]

I don't get it. I'm at phase III of the flow diagram. Whatever result of Route recce mission, I go to Objective Pooh mission (not in the diagram) and when I fail in that, I go back to Route recce. I have yet to win the Pooh mission, but that looks like the only way forward.

Keep in mind that there are various levels of victory, from "tactical" all the way to, uh, was it "total"? I think it was "total". You may need a better result than you achieved in order to advance down the campaign path.

[Secondbrooks]

Major victory should be enough for that fecking 'pooh' mission. Costed me far too much, i bet my advancement in campaign is done.

Mission's designer should deserve a kick for planning so well. I was impressed (altough i'm pissed) how well Syrian positions took count buildings and terrain and formed hard-to-break defencepositions.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Keep in mind that there are various levels of victory, from "tactical" all the way to, uh, was it "total"? I think it was "total". You may need a better result than you achieved in order to advance down the campaign path.

In that case it's a bug, the briefing before the recce mission says the only point of the scenario is to choose a route. I scored a tactical victory by choosing the mountain road and avoided HQs in the village, but the next mission is always attack on the highway.

[Piecekeeper]

Keep in mind that there are various levels of victory, from "tactical" all the way to, uh, was it "total"? I think it was "total". You may need a better result than you achieved in order to advance down the campaign path.

Better result in what mission? The one you choose road ore the one with the highway?

[SgtMuhammed]

Major victory should be enough for that fecking 'pooh' mission. Costed me far too much, i bet my advancement in campaign is done.

Mission's designer should deserve a kick for planning so well. I was impressed (altough i'm pissed) how well Syrian positions took count buildings and terrain and formed hard-to-break defencepositions.

Thanks, I guess. Trust me though, I spent a lot of time kicking my own rear with this one.

Did you score a major victory and still get kicked back to the Decisions mission?

[Secondbrooks]

Thanks, I guess. Trust me though, I spent a lot of time kicking my own rear with this one.

Did you score a major victory and still get kicked back to the Decisions mission?

No-no. Major victory did let me to proceed to next one. Did i spell it wrong earlier?

Minor victory by my experience isn't enough, but i'm not too sure (not clear memory).

[Piecekeeper]

FINALLY ive scored a tactical victory and moved on. (tactical?? what is that by the way)