Why no Excals for the M777?

[Apocal]

Why aren't Excals available for the M777? If I recall correctly, that was one of the keypoints of their introduction into service, an Excal-shooter without the overhead of self-propulsion.

[MikeyD]

Oh, I recall they had a reason of some sort. I'm trying to remember. I think they figured Syra would turn out to be a resource-intensive 'broad front' war, that excalliber rounds would be kept back for special purposes, that they wouldn't go throwing $150,000 shells around just because some infantry squad happened to be receiving a little sniper fire from a nearby building. At least that was my loose interpretation of their reasoning. On the flip side, you get all the precision weapons you want from the airforce! A build or two ago they switched to all precision ordnance for fixed wing.

[Apocal]

Oh, I recall they had a reason of some sort. I'm trying to remember. I think they figured Syra would turn out to be a resource-intensive 'broad front' war, that excalliber rounds would be kept back for special purposes, that they wouldn't go throwing $150,000 shells around just because some infantry squad happened to be receiving a little sniper fire from a nearby building. At least that was my loose interpretation of their reasoning. On the flip side, you get all the precision weapons you want from the airforce! A build or two ago they switched to all precision ordnance for fixed wing.

So, we get Excals for the M109s (IIRC, been awhile since I played with them) but M777s are a no-go? Also, I find the reasoning that allows for platoons, companies and battalions to drop $150-400K LGBs on targets, but not $80K Excals... highly dubious.

[dan/california]

I think their rationale has more to do with the time to add a new system to the interface.

However the British module says it includes MLRS, so either some version of this has gotten done for guided MLRS, or we are going to get the ability to more or less obliterate terrain a square kilometer at a time. I would point out that most scenario maps aren't that big and it is 1/16 of the theoretical maximum map size. And you need a top of the Alien rig to do much with one of those.

[flamingknives]

The British Army doesn't have submunition rockets anymore. GMLRS or nothing.

[Apocal]

I think their rationale has more to do with the time to add a new system to the interface.

I was wrong, the manual mentions Cooperheads, not Excals. Point stands though.

Mission -responsible for establishing initial rate of Fire (ROF) and sustained ROF.

Precision - Uses Cooperhead rounds (only available for FIST)...

Well, Gimmlers is nearly the same thing, functionally, so that's definite a mark in BFC's favor.

[MikeyD]

The manual may mention Copperhead but I must admit I've never seen them in operation. its always spotting round/correction/fire for effect. I've got to admit I don't do much FO from a FIST. Its only been that last patch that I've seen any actual spotting bonus using FIST, and even that is subtle.

[EDITED] - Aha! The original v1.1 printed manual (page 81) mentions precision artilley directed by FIST but the latest updated PDF manual for v1.10 drops the reference (page 93). They just mention Emergency, Light, Medium, Heavy, and Smoke missions - no Precision.

[Apocal]

I've got to admit I don't do much FO from a FIST. Its only been that last patch that I've seen any actual spotting bonus using FIST, and even that is subtle.

That's because this game is entirely too forgiving of when it comes to western troops calling for fire support. I've heard even highly-regarded troops screw things up; hint the O-T line is almost always different than the G-T line.

[EDITED] - Aha! The original v1.1 printed manual (page 81) mentions precision artilley directed by FIST but the latest updated PDF manual for v1.10 drops the reference (page 93). They just mention Emergency, Light, Medium, Heavy, and Smoke missions - no Precision.

Yeah I noticed that when I looked for a way to copy and paste the text straight from the PDF. I was hoping it was a misprint.

[purpheart23]

I was wrong, the manual mentions Cooperheads, not Excals. Point stands though.

Well, Gimmlers is nearly the same thing, functionally, so that's definite a mark in BFC's favor.

The copperhead is worthless. You might as well throw rocks or use foul language. You'd get better results than trying to shoot a copperhead. Trust me on this.

[Apocal]

The copperhead is worthless. You might as well throw rocks or use foul language. You'd get better results than trying to shoot a copperhead. Trust me on this.

I know, I've heard the horror stories.

[ChrisND]

Is there somewhere I can read more about true Copperhead capabilities? The only sources I could find from my quick search sounded more like advertisements than sources.

[Battlefront.com]

Here's the deal...

I started designing the game in mid 2003 (before CMAK was released) primarily in research mode. That continued into the beginning part of 2004. As things firmed up we made certain decisions based on what was going on at the time. Excalibur rounds were introduced, IIRC, in extremely small numbers in 2005 to Iraq for field testing. This was around the time that we were firming up the design of the game and were reluctant to make changes to the system based on things which seemed to be working their way into the field slowly. In 2006 we were behind schedule and adding new things was then impractical for us for production reasons. As it happened, by the time the game was released in 2007 some things we had in the game weren't needed, some things that were needed we didn't get in. Copperheads were left out on purpose because they we discovered that they weren't in service any longer, but it slipped into the manual despite us not putting it into the game.

Since 2007's release we've made many adjustments to the game to better jibe with the way things are in the field today. Things which happened surprisingly fast compared to the previous 3 decades. The reason for the quick introduction was, of course, that the military situation in Iraq (in particular) was generally speaking not good. When things aren't good the pace of change is greatly accelerated, at least in terms of tactics. So in hindsight it's obvious why change happened so quickly, but in 2004/2005 it wasn't since, according to top leadership, the war was over and the insurgency was in its "death throws".

Steve

[Apocal]

Got you. Thanks for the answer.

Are Excals something we can look forward to or is there already too much on your plate for the next module? Personally, I think giving further advantage to using dedicated units for spotting would make US forces seem less "generic."

[Flanker15]

I would imagine that like most things of that nature it will appear in the next modern CMx2 game.

[cmfan]

I know, I've heard the horror stories.

Really? Share a story or two.

I think all I've ever heard where the positives, no actual field reports.

[purpheart23]

He's talking about copperhead not excalibur cm fan. Copperhead isn't worth the wear on the tube to shoot the darn thing. We've shot some that the fins didn't deploy so basically all it did was fly a little ways and then smash into the earth. We've shot some that nobody observed hitting anything and that's not a good thing. Copperhead sucks.........period the end. Excalibur is a whole other deal. Two completely different weapon systems. One's laser guided the other gps(excalibur). Which is a feat unto itself considering the forces at work on an artillery round leaving the tube and the small fragile electronics necessary to make a gps guided munition work. Amazing engineering.

[dan/california]

A six or eight gun FFE with Excalibur, no spotting rounds at all, would finish a lot of fights right then and there. They really need to get the 120 mm mortar rounds in production as well.

[Apocal]

He's talking about copperhead not excalibur cm fan.

Yes.

Copperhead isn't worth the wear on the tube to shoot the darn thing. We've shot some that the fins didn't deploy so basically all it did was fly a little ways and then smash into the earth. We've shot some that nobody observed hitting anything and that's not a good thing.

These. In addition, I've heard they story where one fin either didn't deploy, was ripped off or otherwise non-op and caused the Copperhead to spiral uselessly. Another when it decided that a pool of water was a much better target than actual aimpoint. This isn't touching the tactical relevance of such a weapon at a time when our primary concern was thousands of Soviet armored vehicles storming across Europe, not RPG-armed insurgent cells holed up in a dilapidated apartment building. Additionally, much to our engineers everlasting embarassment, the Soviets fielded around a half-dozen laser guided mortar and cannon shells in the same timeframe (or earlier), which were tactically relevant enough that they remain in production.

Copperhead sucks.........period the end. Excalibur is a whole other deal. Two completely different weapon systems.

And this is the bottom line.

[John Kettler]

Apocal,

I remember being briefed on that and a bunch of other things at a threat conference in 1985. Was shocked the Russians had stolen such a march on U.S. in the PGM field. One of many reasons I'm glad we never went toe to toe during the Cold War!

Regards,

John Kettler