My pixel Brits get mowed down like butter.

[Apocal]

Yeah, I think this helps to just validate my point that the lethality of small arms in the game is perhaps high. I understand that for time limits sake it was this way (although we now have 4 hours), but if it's been increased, I'm not sure if this is a step forwards.

The first incident... not really. The guy was dead long before the gunner kept firing. The Screamer? He would've been red disk in CM:SF after the first few time they shot him. Now if you actually mean accuracy of small arms, I agree.

[Destraex]

butter would be an easy target..... plus it only comes out at night

[SlapHappy]

Heh heh....sounds like Dave's train has sailed.

[DaveDash]

Heh heh....sounds like Dave's train has sailed.

Lol. I'm clearly not the sharpest crayon in the shed.

[DaveDash]

The first incident... not really. The guy was dead long before the gunner kept firing. The Screamer? He would've been red disk in CM:SF after the first few time they shot him. Now if you actually mean accuracy of small arms, I agree.

Essentially yes, we agree.

[Destraex]

hey these days english is mixed up enough anyways. do what you want

who actually even knows anybody who still cares..... most i know have given up on classical education correction.

[Yeknodathon]

Er, exactly how is butter mown down? Surely it is spread?

[Other Means]

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards.

Checkmate.

[Andrew H.]

We really licked their *sses!

[GSX]

I've been biting my lip ever since this thread was started because I didn't want it to come out the wrong way . This is exhibit A in showing that metaphor mixing is bad for your health . Mowed down like grass ... sure. bullets go through my Brits like a hot knife through butter ... yeah. Mowed down like butter? That's just not working for me .

However, if you set several thousand sticks of butter standing on end in a field you could theoretically mow them with a mower so maybe that's what was meant .

Surely it would have to be 'Mown down like tall grass', short grass would be cropped!

Anyways, going back to the topic, I fear its not just the Brits as I played a US mission last night and my Yanks seemed to be 'chopped up like a boiled egg in a cup' much easier than before.

Is it a change in 1.2 in general?

[cool breeze]

If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards.

Checkmate.

LOL! good one!

[Clavicula_Nox]

The first incident... not really. The guy was dead long before the gunner kept firing. The Screamer? He would've been red disk in CM:SF after the first few time they shot him. Now if you actually mean accuracy of small arms, I agree.

There was an issue of insurgents using amphetamines and other drugs to enhance their fighting abilities and survivability. I've read the book in question and seem to recall a mention of something of the sort at one point.

[Apocal]

2pam chloride, meth, and antropine were the ones I remember.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I just played the UK vs US scenario (Friendly Fires) as the Brits on Iron for the first time and only suffered a knocked out Challenger and Warrior. 4 KIA, 1 WIA, 2 missing, and I didn't use any save/reloads.

************Spoilers*****************

I would hardly call myself a tactical genius as I have a terrible save/reload habit and this was against the AI, but all it took was a couple of Javelin teams in a tree line and the Challengers in an overwatch position and all US vehicles got knocked out once coming into sight.

The infantry shootouts were long and not much damage got done due to both sides having body armor. It was pretty interesting to see how fast ammo got expended with both sides having body armor and 'veteran' or 'crack' experience because there was a whole lot of shooting and not a lot of suppression. I had to use artillery on enemy positions after the shooting started to get anybody to budge.

I just played this scenario from the Red Syria/US side and decimated the Brits while only suffering 1 KIA (killed by a Warrior, I think). I also had one M1 immobilized and 1 Bradley's weapon controls damaged. I'm sure the scenario is meant to be played as Blue, but I also found the British forces to fold like paper. I've only had the module since Saturday and I'm completely unfamiliar with the Royal Army, so I have no idea what the issue could be. Does the RA require more finesse where the US military can afford more blunt force?

[flamingknives]

I think that the British are definitely trickier to use than the US. If you can't use combined arms then it can get very tricky.

Incidently, Mr. flamingPicky would like to point out that the British Army is not Royal in itself, although parts of it are (Royal Artillery, Royal Armoured Corps).

[Apocal]

I just played this scenario from the Red Syria/US side and decimated the Brits while only suffering 1 KIA (killed by a Warrior, I think). I also had one M1 immobilized and 1 Bradley's weapon controls damaged. I'm sure the scenario is meant to be played as Blue, but I also found the British forces to fold like paper.

I play it under one house rule: Americans don't get Javelins. Played that way, helps offset the advantage of Bradleys with TOW over Brit APCs with either MGs or an unstabilized, slow-firing thirty mikemike. And it forces the American player to pay attention to terrain and find good hide locations for his tracks, rather than just hiding them in the cluster of buildings, along with the infantry, while Javelins kill every threat on the battlefield.

I've only had the module since Saturday and I'm completely unfamiliar with the Royal Army, so I have no idea what the issue could be. Does the RA require more finesse where the US military can afford more blunt force?

Heh, British Army, for some reason it's not Royal. IME, yeah a lot more finesse, the light infantry is mostly similar, But their mechanized infantry is in this really ****ty 113 lookalike, it burns like one too. I forget what kind of gun is mounted MMG or HMG, but it isn't important, one RPG or even a decent string of HMG rounds or grenades and goodbye track. Armored Infantry is a little bit better, the Warrior has comparable or better protection than a Brad, but the gun sucks and no TOW.

They all have 81s though, which is nice.

Tanks are similar, Challenger is a bit better protected, but not enough to actually influence tactics.

Artillery, same same.

[Clavicula_Nox]

I think that the British are definitely trickier to use than the US. If you can't use combined arms then it can get very tricky.

Incidently, Mr. flamingPicky would like to point out that the British Army is not Royal in itself, although parts of it are (Royal Artillery, Royal Armoured Corps).

Noted. I've seen it posted here that one should treat the British Army in-game as a sort of heavy recce force, would you say that is accurate?

I play it under one house rule: Americans don't get Javelins. Played that way, helps offset the advantage of Bradleys with TOW over Brit APCs with either MGs or an unstabilized, slow-firing thirty mikemike. And it forces the American player to pay attention to terrain and find good hide locations for his tracks, rather than just hiding them in the cluster of buildings, along with the infantry, while Javelins kill every threat on the battlefield.

Yeah, I should have done that. I think my Javelins "only" accounted for 1 Challenger and 1 Warrior, though. My Abrams were the champs and completely steamrolled the right-flank. My TOWs were only used against a poor infantry platoon that was caught in the center town. If it wasn't for those Abrams, I suppose my Javelins would have seen more use. I completely forgot about my FO.

[MikeyD]

I am chuckling over this (quietly). For months (years) there have been complaints that the fighting against Syrians was 'unbalanced'. Then the Brits arrived and everyone's aghast! Oh, did you mean you wanted the Syrians made stronger, not the other way around?

[DaveDash]

I am chuckling over this (quietly). For months (years) there have been complaints that the fighting against Syrians was 'unbalanced'. Then the Brits arrived and everyone's aghast! Oh, did you mean you wanted the Syrians made stronger, not the other way around?

It has absolutely nothing do with the lack of a challenge and everything to do with realism / the suspension of disbelief.

The main reason I, and many others enjoy this game is because it is one of the most realistic modern combat simulators on the market. You get to feel like a real commander. When things happen that are contrary to what you read, see, and hear, such as body armoured soldiers being wiped out in a matter of seconds, like a FPS, then it ruins the immersion of the game.

Also note, when I started this thread, I wasn't aware of the rooftop bug introduced in 1.2 that allows your men to be unrealistically wiped out in seconds. That was a valid complaint and part of the reason I felt the game to be unrealistic.

[Sgt Joch]

It has absolutely nothing do with the lack of a challenge and everything to do with realism / the suspension of disbelief.

The main reason I, and many others enjoy this game is because it is one of the most realistic modern combat simulators on the market. You get to feel like a real commander. When things happen that are contrary to what you read, see, and hear, such as body armoured soldiers being wiped out in a matter of seconds, like a FPS, then it ruins the immersion of the game.

Also note, when I started this thread, I wasn't aware of the rooftop bug introduced in 1.2 that allows your men to be unrealistically wiped out in seconds. That was a valid complaint and part of the reason I felt the game to be unrealistic.

Calling the game "unrealistic" is a bit strong and I presume not the adjective you meant to use. The "rooftop" bug has already been fixed and will be in 1.21, no doubt the "MG not on the balcony" bug will be too. Small bugs always tend to creep in and are dealt with.

Playing as the Brits is more of a challenge, they have smaller squads, less firepower, more fragile AFVs. You have to be more careful in how you use them than USMC squads. I am still working on the optimum tactics, but I have not seen anything yet that would lead me to conclude that the modeling of the British is out of whack.

[Sgt Joch]

I've noticed entire sections get mowed down like butter if caught in the open, on a rooftop, or assaulting a building, taking half casualties almost immediately (lots of brown and reds) and then the others panic and get cut down in in the ensuring chaos. I lost an entire crack experience section assaulting a building in the 1st mission in about 5-10 seconds.

The tactics are probably an issue ( and I tend to lose more men than I should myself ). I think we all tend to rush more in setting up and carrying an attack than US/UK soldiers would in RL (since our lives do not depend on it). Before attacking a particular building, we should have troops looking at it for 10 minutes or more, from many angles just to see if movement is detected, but who wants to wait that long in a game.

regarding your point about an issue with British v. US body armour, just to be safe, maybe someone could run some tests just to make sure that no last minute bug may have crept in.

[GSX]

I think the reason many think the Brits are not very good is that theyre used to using Javelins and 20mm cannon and Bradleys etc etc, which is all well and good but they may not be thinking tactically.

CMSF is somewhat unrealistic in many ways, especially when it comes to the Brits. We get a lot of light vehicles but they are too vulnerable at most CMSF ranges and so guys automatically think they suck. In real life a lot of those vehicles wouldnt go near the enemy as guys want them to in game.

Again the Brits were never designed to fight the US, so complaining about them not standing up to the 'big boys' is a little daft. Actually in Real life UK soldiers more often than not kick the US asses in exercises.

The key to CMSF and the Brits especially is time as Sgt Joch says above. If your willing to wait, then you will usually be rewarded. Heck, I think Im failing if I have to debuss my guys from a Warrior.

[Tux]

Slightly OT but, to explain a curiosity someone brought up, the British Army fought against the Crown in the 1640s (in the form of the New Model Army, of course). I think that screwed their chances of receiving the 'Royal' prefix and it's never been altered since.

[GSX]

Slightly OT but, to explain a curiosity someone brought up, the British Army fought against the Crown in the 1640s (in the form of the New Model Army, of course). I think that screwed their chances of receiving the 'Royal' prefix and it's never been altered since.

The British Army is a collection of Regiments that way back were traditionally raised by individuals for the Crown. There are a lot of Royal regiments, Anglians, Scots etc but this collection was never formed into a Royal Army. The Royal navy was commissioned by the government and the Royal Air Force was likewise formed. But the Army remains as it always was, that same collection. Its a wee bit more complicated than that and also involves various unions of Armies, as in the English and Scots Armies when the Crown was unified and then the various Irish regiments.

Over time it just evolved into what it is today, the British Army.

[Blackcat]

Tux,

I think you are barking up the wrong tree. The British Army was based on a collection of regiments, normaly founded and recruited by some member of the aristocracy, each with their own title, some Regiments got the royal "seal of approval" and some didn't. There never was a national army as such, not in the same way as there was a national navy.

The regimental sysem has been the strength (and in some respects the curse) of the British army since the Restoration. Modern politicians, of course, don't understand it which is why so much has been done to wreck it since the 60's.