M320

[Yardstick]

A paratrooper with 1st Brigade Combat Team, 82nd Airborne Division, fires a training round from the new M-320 grenade launcher while learning to use the weapon on a Fort Bragg, N.C., range July 1. The brigade was the first unit in the Army to receive the advanced grenade launcher that will replace the Vietnam-era M-203. (Photo by Spc. Michael J. MacLeod)

So now that this bad boy is no longer in the X catagory, are going to see an in game model that matches the weapon icon in the info panel?

[Apocalypse 31]

It's really not much different than the M203 as far as ballistics and such.

Juts side loading, and can be removed from the underbarrel. Although, I'm not sure who in their right mind would want to do that

[Yardstick]

Juts side loading, and can be removed from the underbarrel. Although, I'm not sure who in their right mind would want to do that

No doubt the same guys that wanted us to carry M79s during OIF III.

IIRC BFC originally intended to put the XM320 into CMSF, as is evident by the "Green, Yellow, Dead" weapon icons in the info panel. My question is, are they are going to change the icon or update the WPN system or say f-it, it's fine as is? I remember this being the debated here back in '05, so I wonder where BFC will go with this one.

[akd]

Going by the game's setting, 2008, I don't see any need to add them back in. I'm still hoping the M32s will become optional, as the same should apply there.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, we were going to put in the M320 until it looked like it would be pushed off for a long time due to other funding priorities. We were correct, BTW, about it being fielded much later than it was supposed to be.

The opposite seems to be the case with the Marines M32. When we had to make the decision about putting it in or not we were being told it was already being trialed in combat. That and some inside information made us think it was going to be coming into the field, en mas, very quickly. Guessed wrong on that one

Steve

[Yardstick]

Yup, we were going to put in the M320 until it looked like it would be pushed off for a long time due to other funding priorities. We were correct, BTW, about it being fielded much later than it was supposed to be.

The opposite seems to be the case with the Marines M32. When we had to make the decision about putting it in or not we were being told it was already being trialed in combat. That and some inside information made us think it was going to be coming into the field, en mas, very quickly. Guessed wrong on that one

Steve

Ya win some, ya lose some, right?

[Lethaface]

I dont see anyone complaining about getting the M32

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, we won many guessing games with CM:SF, but not all. That is the challenge of working with contemporary/near future stuff vs. working with WW2. The only guesswork there is to decide how common or rare something was for a given period of the war on that particular front. Which we also have to do for contemporary/near future warfare PLUS determine if they should have the thing at all PLUS (in some cases) guess what the final version will look like. The TUSK program for Abrams is an example of something that got repeatedly delayed and then became reality in a form different than the original specs. Frustrating, but also challenging in a good way.

Steve

[dan/california]

The M32 is my favorite toy in the game, period. The manufacturer should hand out free copies of CMSF+Marines as a promotional strategy. Sometimes I think they account for over half of the casualties inflicted by infantry weapons.

The army is fielding its new XM25 grenade launcher in afghanistan sometime this summer. I am very curious about those AARs.

[-Pv-]

I agree the M32 seems to be the most decisive Marine weapon.

We're all gonna die!

Phoink.

Phoinkphoink.

Phoinkphoinkphoinkphoinkphoinkphoink

We Won.

-Pv-

[akd]

I dont see anyone complaining about getting the M32

*Raises hand* I would like to see it as optional under the "good" equipment setting, with M16a4/203s for "normal/poor," both to reflect 2008 reality, to allow for historical scenarios prior to 2008, and because the M4/m32 combination decisively shifts the firepower of the fire team to a perhaps exaggerated (but of course fun) level.

Steve mentioned this as a possible addition, but I haven't heard anything since then.

[GSX]

*Raises hand* I would like to see it as optional under the "good" equipment setting, with M16a4/203s for "normal/poor," both to reflect 2008 reality, to allow for historical scenarios prior to 2008, and because the M4/m32 combination decisively shifts the firepower of the fire team to a perhaps exaggerated (but of course fun) level.

Steve mentioned this as a possible addition, but I haven't heard anything since then.

Id go along with this idea. CMSF has become a historical game as its set in 2008 and it would be weird to keep putting future weapons not even fielded in 2009 in. For the upcoming Brit Module I noticed that the Typhoon was going to be dropping bombs. The Typhoon isnt going to be doing that for another few years yet and certainly wouldnt be in 2008.

However, I do understand the need to spice up games with weapons and weapons systems that werent actually around in 2008. CMSF is after all a strange mix of modern, historical and sci-fi all rolled into one which certainly works for me most of the time.

[flamingknives]

Given that Typhoon attained air-to-ground clearance in late June 2008, it is reasonable to assume that clearance could have been accelerated in the face of a major ground campaign.

[Battlefront.com]

We always tried to keep the timeframe a little bit flexible. In our minds 2009 was the outer most timeframe we wanted to cover. And by that I mean stuff being used in significant quantities by 2009. We had to do some guesswork on that back in 2004-2008. With NATO forces things will be easy because, for the first time, we can look and say "that isn't in use yet so it should be skipped".

AKD,

I honestly forgot about looking into the option of having the Marines Rifle Squads optionally have no M32s but instead have good old fashioned M203s on their M16s. It's too late for v1.20 release, but I'll see if it might be possible to do for another release.

Steve

[Yardstick]

AKD,

I honestly forgot about looking into the option of having the Marines Rifle Squads optionally have no M32s but instead have good old fashioned M203s on their M16s. It's too late for v1.20 release, but I'll see if it might be possible to do for another release.

Steve

That would be awesome.

[akd]

We always tried to keep the timeframe a little bit flexible. In our minds 2009 was the outer most timeframe we wanted to cover. And by that I mean stuff being used in significant quantities by 2009. We had to do some guesswork on that back in 2004-2008. With NATO forces things will be easy because, for the first time, we can look and say "that isn't in use yet so it should be skipped".

AKD,

I honestly forgot about looking into the option of having the Marines Rifle Squads optionally have no M32s but instead have good old fashioned M203s on their M16s. It's too late for v1.20 release, but I'll see if it might be possible to do for another release.

Steve

Thanks Steve. I understand it's a little detail, but would be great for crafting missions in the Editor.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

AKD,

I honestly forgot about looking into the option of having the Marines Rifle Squads optionally have no M32s but instead have good old fashioned M203s on their M16s. It's too late for v1.20 release, but I'll see if it might be possible to do for another release.

Steve

That would be awesome.