First impressions about British gameplay

[afreu]

I just started the campaign and would like to know how other players are experiencing playing with the British forces. How is it different from the Marines or the US Army for you? To what extent are you adapting your tactics in order to efficiently use the British forces?

A few things I noticed:

-As already mentioned in a couple of threads, artillery seems to be much more important. There are not MBTs in the first campaign mission and the scimitars can only provide very limited direct fire support. MGs and other infantry weapons don't seem to be that effective in surpressing enemy forces especially when they are inside buildings.

-British AFVs/APCs are much weaker in their armament than their US Army/Marines counterparts.

-It seems that in house to house fighting team and squad leaders get cut down very quickly.

[Zatoichi]

I haven't actually finished the 1st mission yet (stupid work getting in the way of the important stuff again!), but I'm not far off.

*** Possible spoiler ***

I found keeping my Scimitars a long way back from the main group of buildings and using 'target light' most of the time in order to save the 30mm ammo for more stubborn targets has so far been pretty successful. Even so, I've managed to lose one Scimitar in a probe up the right flank after I foolishly assumed my 155mm barrage had taken care of any lurking Syrians.

As for team leaders dying in close quarters fighting, I've always had this problem in CMSF as they are generally the first through the door. Having several other units hosing down the building often helps, but this isn't always practical or even possible.

[c3k]

I've only played the one battle so far (um, only one restart ), but I'm learrning that the UK forces may need a bit more of the manuever side of things due to a lack of fire. Of course, I think any force out there would seem to be lacking in fire when compared to the USMC. And the same with a US Army mech unit. The Brits are going to force me to use some actual tactics to achieve the objectives.

Ken

[afreu]

I alson noticed that Javelins are less powerful against infantry in and on buildings compared to pre-CMSF:BF games. When impacting close to enemy infantry (as in hitting the same roof) soldiers are suppressed but few get injured. It seems that the enemies RPG is more effective than the Javelin against infantry.

[TheVulture]

Conversely, the Brits have access to the LASM (light anti-structure missile) which can be picked up from many vehicles, although I can't say very well how it stacks up against infantry in buildings compared to javelins.

[Darkmage]

I haven't actually finished the 1st mission yet (stupid work getting in the way of the important stuff again!), but I'm not far off.

*** Possible spoiler ***

I found keeping my Scimitars a long way back from the main group of buildings and using 'target light' most of the time in order to save the 30mm ammo for more stubborn targets has so far been pretty successful. Even so, I've managed to lose one Scimitar in a probe up the right flank after I foolishly assumed my 155mm barrage had taken care of any lurking Syrians.

As for team leaders dying in close quarters fighting, I've always had this problem in CMSF as they are generally the first through the door. Having several other units hosing down the building often helps, but this isn't always practical or even possible.

hmm I haven't noticed squad leaders in particular dying in house storming. Perhaps things could be tweaked so that when a move order is issued into a building, the squad leader doesn't plough in first but sends his grenadier etc..

Come to think of it are squad leaders even modelled at the head of a formation? Surely they shouldn't be..

[Zatoichi]

Well maybe it's 'first to be shot' rather than 'first through the door'!

Or possibly even more likely I only remember the times when my leaders get mown down compared to the countless times it's some other poor fellow instead! Selective memory is a wonderful thing.

[Thomm]

Impression from first campaign mission:very different to what I am used to from the US side. Much lighter force and armament. This is going to be a tough campaign!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Paper Tiger]

The Brits are going to force me to use some actual tactics to achieve the objectives

Very good observation Ken. When I played missions with US 'heavies', I found the game was far more forgiving of any tactical errors I made that with playing with Brit kit. Come to think of it, the US stuff was so forgiving that it even helped me to develop BAD tactics so with the Brits, I had to unlearn them and start doing things properly.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree about the US Army firepower. "Oops... what's that enemy doing on my flank? Maybe I should have been more careful about them sneaking up. But not to worry, I've got a world of hurt I can direct at that hapless enemy unit that will fix this up pronto!" And I get off with minimal problems PROVIDED I am using the correct tactics for that force.

What I mean by that is the heaviest of heaviest forces in CM:SF, employed incorrectly, won't save your butt by itself. Matching the wrong tactics to the wrong situation most often doesn't work out so well. Which is accurate. BUT... if you make some minor mistakes, and generally have the right tactical plan for the situation, then often times you can make up for those shortcomings through firepower.

With Marines the situation is similar when talking about dismounted fights, not so much when it comes to mechanized combined arms. The Marines don't have the quantity and variety of "toys" to play with that the Army's SBCT and HBCT have under normal circumstances. Same thing for the newly introduced IBCT.

The British Forces are a unique mix of elements. Lots of vehicles, quite a bit of firepower, but generally not strong enough to withstand tactical mistakes. Tactically speaking not that much better against a mech heavy enemy than SBCTs, perhaps less so due to the lack of Javelins falling out of every orifice like SBCT.

One thing that I find interesting is that when using the British Forces I see why having .50cals on the Strykers are just fine. Tactically speaking, I don't see much difference using the heavier armed British vehicles vs. the lighter armed Strykers since both weapons do a fairly similar job vs. soft targets. And when the targets are heavier, the British light armor is not all that more likely to survive than the Strykers are, despite their cannons.

All in all I really like the tactical nuances.

Steve

[Wengart]

I've actually found, that the Brits lack of firepower has me taking more risks than I would with the Americans.

Also, has anyone else found themselves wishing they had some Strykers?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Also, has anyone else found themselves wishing they had some Strykers?

All playtesting long.

As a bit of a campaign SPOILER!!!

Towards the end, if you make a certain decision, you get to use significant numbers of American units alongside your Brits. I found in my AARs that my Americans took completely disproportionate casualties, and then I realized why: I was just only using the Americans!

[Bertram]

I enjoyed the first battle of the campaign, but..

*****possible spoiler*******

After taking the first building pretty easily I waited a bit for the artillery to arrive. This made me short on time, so I had to take some risks. As a result I lost 3 of my men.

And then the Syrians surrendered with 5 minutes to go and me just short of the Checkpoint (they had only 5 regulars left that were combat ready). As a result I got 0 points for the Checkpoint.... I felt a bit cheated, as I had planned it so that I could take it just in the allotted time. And those 3 men died in vain .

Still, even without the Checkpoint and the secret papers (the archive go messed up by a few stray bullets) I got a major victory, so I am off into Syria.

[Ricochet67]

Also, has anyone else found themselves wishing they had some Strykers?

I'm barely at the shooting stage of the first campaign mission but I'd dearly love some Strykers over these thin-skinned, Pommy deathtraps. Of the British lineup, I'd keep the Challengers and Warriors and turf the remainder.

My tactical prowess, limited though it may be, will certainly be put to the test keeping these bludgers alive.

[Cpl Steiner]

As a result I got 0 points for the Checkpoint.

If the Syrians surrendered you should have been awarded the points for ALL the "occupy" objectives, whether you'd taken them or not. Not sure about "touch" objectives but logically there should be no difference. Are you sure you got 0 points for these? Perhaps you were just miffed that the Syrians gave up the objectives without a fight?

[Yair Iny]

I'm barely at the shooting stage of the first campaign mission but I'd dearly love some Strykers over these thin-skinned, Pommy deathtraps. Of the British lineup, I'd keep the Challengers and Warriors and turf the remainder.

My tactical prowess, limited though it may be, will certainly be put to the test keeping these bludgers alive.

Ha ha Ricochet! Hope you're not letting The Ashes influence your attitude to the British Pixel troops. Also, you can't possibly dump the Jackal. Besides having a cool name, it also looks great, just ignore the fact that it's not very useful

[Kat Johnston]

Also, has anyone else found themselves wishing they had some Strykers?

Not at all, just want more Warriors, more Javelin-toting WMIK teams and less Scimitars. Although I've never liked Strykers, I must admit.

Thinking about it, I guess there are advantages to running with all the lighter kit - fuel consumption in particular I guess - which might have hidden beneficial effects.

[blow56]

I am a few missions in to the Brit campaign and have to say - at last, a realistic determination of how modern armies are supposed to work. Brits hate casualties. Let me repeat that - Brits HATE casualties. That's why I am pleased to see the extended battle lengths, though the campaign designers are still stuck in this short, sharp engagement mode, which works with US art-heavy forces. With the Brits you take your time, use the tactics of pin and outflank - and use those incredibly useful little mortars.

It highlights, of course, the inadequacies of the WMIK, the Bulldog, the Scimitar and, above all, that appalling little obsolete Spartan (which I have driven, perched above the hot engine). This also means careful positioning and support.

On the interface improvements - well done for highlighting snipers, well done for bringing everything in ready-mounted and thankyouthankyouthankyou for giving us up to 4 hours of battle time.

Now that I have a Light Btn (3 Para) all I need is a decent water tile to do a proper Helmand Province campaign. And some modders to come up with Euro camo for vehicles and troops and I can add the Brits to my putative campaign about UN intervention in the Ukraine.

[Battlefront.com]

The current state of the British Army is a tough one. It's fielding a lot of equipment that is clearly past it's prime. Yet the cost of replacing the existing inventory is certainly something that Parliament is unprepared to approve of due to the larger economic picture.

Unlike the spend crazy Americans, they did NOT perform a major refitting of their forces in the 1980s and 1990s when economic times were much better. They have NOT spent tons of money to keep older vehicles up to modern standards nearly as much as the Americans. Yet clearly they recognized the need for this judging by various upgrade/replacement programs which have been repeatedly delayed due to funding limitations.

So the Brits are in a tough position now. They are clearly getting further and further behind, technologically, and yet the willingness to spend money hasn't been improving. It seems given the choice between suffering casualties or reducing combat commitments the indications are that getting out of combat situations is winning the day. Which is idiotically short sighted since the military forces won't spontaneously improve. At some point the money has to be put into new hardware or the military might as well be disbanded. Which, of course, is on the agenda of some of the radicals.

Steve

[MikeyD]

By coincidence just yesterday (the 30th) a British newspaper published a report titled "Army tank labeled hopeless by former infantry officer". Here's the link, don't know how long it'll stay up. Includes Youtube footage of Scimitars firing away.

http://www.clicklancashire.com/news/national-news/123069-army-tank-labeled-hopeless-by-former-infantry-officer.html

[ScubaSam]

Well you can't say CMSF isn't bang up to date with the real world - I lost 3 Scimitar Crewmen to an IED in one of the British Campaign missions today. I'm on Mission 10 (waay too much free time on my hands) and I'm finding the campaign surprisingly tough.

My missions tend to either go surprisingly well, with Syrian Surrenders and only a handful of wounded, or spectacularly badly, with 30 or 40 dead and about the same wounded. Havn't technically "failed" any missions yet though...

For anyone whos been breezing through the campaign so far, wait til you get to the Police Station mission. To say it's a challenge would be an understatement

[Ricochet67]

Agreed. The Jackal looks cool.

The lack of platoon MMGs is somewhat offset by a plethora of tincans toting exposed MGs. I miss being able to overwatch infantry by MG teams able to occupy buildings/rooftops. An APC isn't as nimble as an MG team and is a considerably larger target.

The fact dismounts man the MG in some vehicles is interesting. In some cases, I kept small HQ units mounted in order to keep the MG operating. Nonetheless, there were a half dozen APCs unable to contribute fire support in the first campaign mission.

There's a dearth of .50 cal MGs. The 7.62mm MGs don't have anywhere near the same punch. I noticed the .50 cal is available on some light vehicles like the Jackal.

The smaller squads are noticeable with only 7 or 8 pairs of boots depending on whether the unit is armoured or mechanised infantry.

All up, the differences encourage, nay, require a fresh approach to the game. I take more care of the thin-skinned armour and make a greater effort to provide direct and indirect fire support to the infantry. It's definitely an eye-opener seeing the Brits hardware and organisational structure. Mind you, I quite like the Challenger and Warrior. Even if I did manage to lose 2 Warriors in the second mission but I put that down to sheer stubbornness on my behalf - and lack of an integral ATGM.

[Thomm]

With the British Forces I pay attention to platoon cohesion for the first time ever in CM:SF, just to gain a small advantage!

Best regards,

Thomm

[GSX]

The current state of the British Army is a tough one. It's fielding a lot of equipment that is clearly past it's prime. Yet the cost of replacing the existing inventory is certainly something that Parliament is unprepared to approve of due to the larger economic picture.

Unlike the spend crazy Americans, they did NOT perform a major refitting of their forces in the 1980s and 1990s when economic times were much better. They have NOT spent tons of money to keep older vehicles up to modern standards nearly as much as the Americans. Yet clearly they recognized the need for this judging by various upgrade/replacement programs which have been repeatedly delayed due to funding limitations.

So the Brits are in a tough position now. They are clearly getting further and further behind, technologically, and yet the willingness to spend money hasn't been improving. It seems given the choice between suffering casualties or reducing combat commitments the indications are that getting out of combat situations is winning the day. Which is idiotically short sighted since the military forces won't spontaneously improve. At some point the money has to be put into new hardware or the military might as well be disbanded. Which, of course, is on the agenda of some of the radicals.

Steve

I think the UK has suffered from this neglect since about 1650, despite this we havent done too badly. I also think that if you took a snapshot in any decade since 1650 you would see the same problems and statements regarding equipment etc.

No one wants to pay for the military if they can get away with it and this includes all militaries. More than a few US projects have been abandoned and cancelled in the last few years and rather than being technologically left behind, we have been quite innovative at times. We were using the SUSAT for instance when the US was still using Iron sights on their M16's.

I have no idea what your on about when stating that we are trying to disengage from any conflicts? From this side of the pond I see no talk of this at the 'coal face'. In fact the UK has been involved in conflict every year since ww2, and have taken casualties in the vast majority of them. We were fighting terrorists when a lot of people in the US thought it was cool or nostalgic to support them.

I wont even begin to compare the quality of our armed forces against any other nations, but having worked with many other nations over the years I think we come out very near the top of the pile, if not on top.

In sum, yes we can do with a bit more money to buy shiney things and yes sometimes the politicians can be a pain, but its not all doom and gloom and our equipment is good in the main backed up by a very professional force that has high morale and is extremely effective in what it does.

[GSX]

On to the game.

I dont see a huge difference between the US Army and UK Army here (sans Javelin). In fact in a few tests the UK infantry actually seem to have a range and accuracy advantage when facing each other in comparible size. However, theres never as many of them, thats for sure.

In the main though, if your tactics were sound before, then theres no reason why they wont work now. Unless of course you used to rush everywhere in your Strykers, getting them blown up etc....

They dont stand up to the Marines though, who does with all those GLs!

Still, they do add a lot of fun and killing Syrians with the Brits isnt really any harder than with anyone else once youve learned what all the new stuff does and more importantly, what it cant do.