Peter Panzer Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Apocal Thanks for the list. I have already read several of those titles, however it was some time ago. I will be picking up a copy of We Were One tonight. If the roster you presented is a reflection of your preferences, you will want to check out House to House by SSG David Bellavia (USMC). I have a better sense of where you seem to be coming from, but from what I recall, the use of heavy fire against structures with unknown inhabitants was, by far, a post initial contact event. Although not exclusively, this was an effort to either break contact or achieve fire superiority after an ambush had already been initiated. Again, it's been awhile since I have read the accounts you mentioned so there may well be some very legit examples of preemptive fire in the materials above. There really aren't a whole lot of other options, to be honest.What always makes me start looking at the screen askew is the apparent lack of ability to observe contacts in structures or on rooftops no matter how obvious they are until they open fire (see the link in my previous posts for an example). That just does not square up with me. I think we need to be careful about rationalizing away a shortcoming in a key aspect of MOUT that could use some adjustment. IRL insurgents initiate contact around 80% of the time in built-up areas. This is my understanding as well. The problem, as I see it, is that in CMSF it is 100% of the time. Nothing the player can do, short of redecorating the block, can effect the chance to prevent in ambush in MOUT conditions. MOUT spotting could stand to be tweaked, but prior to this, holding onto buildings in the face of firepower was harder than it should be because of X-ray vision possessed by some units. Well, you know how I feel about the tweaking part. I think we both agree that absolutes or extremes are a no-go. That's what we have right now with v.1.11 regarding spotting in MOUT - an absolute. That's where the BFC boys have to walk the line in terms of modeling, I just happen to think they are a bit tipsy at the moment. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it. Rogue I hope you found some good tips and all of the spotting back-and-forth isn't too tangential. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tc237 Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah, on the Army side I almost always kept the HQ in the Stryker, but I was not sure how realistic this is. Mainly in the leading from the front vs leading from the rear mentality. Since I am not (and never was) in the Army, I am not sure if a LT would stay in the armored vechicle while his guys are facing danger. I wasn't an Infantryman so maybe they can give a better answer but from all the grunts I talked to and worked with, in a mounted unit: Either the LT or PSG stays with the vehicles while the other moves with the dismounts. Sometimes both can go/stay and a senior/experienced Section Sergeant will go/stay. IIRC it is dependent on unit SOP or training, experience and confidence of the LT. Don't know how this would work in the game, is the PSG (PLT XO in the game) capable of maintaining C2? Regarding mounted officers, of course PLT leaders vehicles are right in the thick of things and are expected to lead from the front. Company level Commanders are usually just behind the lead Plt or so, their duty is to run the battle but also to communicate wth higher HQ, they want to be close enough to see and "feel' the fight and be able to relay what they are seeing to HQ but also remain far enough back to stay safe. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Yeah, on the Army side I almost always kept the HQ in the Stryker, but I was not sure how realistic this is. Mainly in the leading from the front vs leading from the rear mentality. Since I am not (and never was) in the Army, I am not sure if a LT would stay in the armored vechicle while his guys are facing danger. An officer's job is to direct the killing; he can't accomplish that while looking through the sights of his own weapon and focusing on the bad guy to his immediate front. "Lead from the front" is a strange concept, but should probably be reserved for Novembers rather than Alphas. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Apocal Thanks for the list. I have already read several of those titles, however it was some time ago. I will be picking up a copy of We Were One tonight. If the roster you presented is a reflection of your preferences, you will want to check out House to House by SSG David Bellavia (USMC). I've read it, thanks. Good book, a bit of a visceral side. I have a better sense of where you seem to be coming from, but from what I recall, the use of heavy fire against structures with unknown inhabitants was, by far, a post initial contact event. Although not exclusively, this was an effort to either break contact or achieve fire superiority after an ambush had already been initiated. Again, it's been awhile since I have read the accounts you mentioned so there may well be some very legit examples of preemptive fire in the materials above. It's after they've taken contact, yes, but in a fair number of them they talk of hitting potential locations as well, anticipating ambushes. In Thunder Run they spoke of shooting up overpasses preemptively, based on their previous experience of having Iraqis launch short range ambushes from there. What always makes me start looking at the screen askew is the apparent lack of ability to observe contacts in structures or on rooftops no matter how obvious they are until they open fire (see the link in my previous posts for an example). That just does not square up with me. I think we need to be careful about rationalizing away a shortcoming in a key aspect of MOUT that could use some adjustment. On rooftops is definately an issue. Inside buildings I can live with not being able to discern occupancy up to the point they begin aiming. Occupying rooftops should actually make you stand out unless they have a wall, because it takes a very special kind of stupid to get on a roof in blazing heat and swirling dust if not for a reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cool breeze Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 In the Marine campaign v1.1 I have had marines spot syrians first while the syrians were in buildings many times. rooftops look a little wierd spotting wise but I think that might just be because of restraints on graphical fidelity. A lot of the spotting was done by elite units so maybe that is important. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlapHappy Posted March 25, 2009 Share Posted March 25, 2009 Troop quality DEFINITELY affects spotting capabilities. I have had elite troops almost directly next to lower quality troops who could spot enemies the others could not. I do feel the game coding needs to be careful with this kind of implementation, however. Just because a squad has a status of regular doesn't mean it is full of extremely near-sighted guys. Of course, it could be more of a question of do they have they experience to positively IDENTIFY what it is that they are actually seeing........ 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.