Or are these vehicles?

[RommL]

Ah... the arrows were pointed at the ones without slat armor In any case, they should be in there by changing the Equipment setting.

Steve

Yes, but these vehicles are not present in the game.

[ScubaSam]

Aha - the Recce HQs has GPMG Jackals, not GMG. My apologies. There are GMG WMIKs (standard land rover types) in the game, but it appears there are indeed no jackal MWMIKs with GMGs.

The recce platoon does however feature no less than 8 Jackals armed with .50 cal HMGs. Perhaps some of those should have Mk19 GMGs?

[Flanker15]

The airfield mission of the Brit campaign features a GMG WMIK. As does the "It Ain't Half Hot Mum" scenario - the support platoon that turns up after about 15 mins has two GMG and 4 HMG WMIKs.

The WMIK with the GMG is available, the MWMIK with the GMG I can't find.

[Sequoia]

Okay then Vulture, nevermind. We were talking about two different vehicles. I should have read your post more carefully.

But anyway as Romml was saying, no one can find any Scimitars or Spartans without slat armor either. Steve seemed to think they should be there.

[akd]

What's odd is that their equipment is already listed on the left side in the editor (i.e. GPMG/HMG), so I can't see how the "equipment" setting would have an effect on distribution even if it were working.

[Battlefront.com]

Sorry for the confusion... I was confused as to what people thought was missing, plus the WMIK having the GMG has caused things to be further confused since that isn't a Jackal.

Checking back in long ago conversations we ditched the non-slat armored FV107 and FV103 because, like the Strykers, they aren't going into combat without their slats (apparently). So, like the Strykers, we decided against having non-slat versions. Obviously we forgot to have those entries removed from the feature list.

As for the Jackal GMG, there was no correct place to put it into the TO&E so it didn't get into the game. Technically speaking, this is a configuration that is non-standard and would be found only in specialized recon units, for example with the Royal Marines. We're taking another look into that to see what we might be able to do about it.

Steve

[Apocal]

As for the Jackal GMG, there was no correct place to put it into the TO&E so it didn't get into the game. Technically speaking, this is a configuration that is non-standard and would be found only in specialized recon units, for example with the Royal Marines. We're taking another look into that to see what we might be able to do about it.

Steve

I'm reading that as: "Additional Brit forces in the NATO module"

[Sequoia]

I'm reading that as: "Additional Brit forces in the NATO module"

It could be in a patch as I think the graphics for the vehicle are done. Didn't the Panzer IVd come and go from CMAK a couple of times?

[Battlefront.com]

Apocal,

I'm reading that as: "Additional Brit forces in the NATO module"

Nah, if anything it will be in the British v1.21 patch. But we're still considering what to do about it.

Steve

[ScubaSam]

Throw caution to the wind and have a special GMG equipped Jackal Mega Task Force (JMTF)?

Though I'm not sure how that would sit with the purists....;)

[RommL]

As for the Jackal GMG, there was no correct place to put it into the TO&E so it didn't get into the game. Technically speaking, this is a configuration that is non-standard and would be found only in specialized recon units, for example with the Royal Marines. We're taking another look into that to see what we might be able to do about it.

Steve

it suffices to correct this in a patch or in NATO module.

And to do you to forgive again more, create a pretty French module...

[Kat Johnston]

As others have noted, it's related more to the survivability of the crew than the vehicle itself.

Gotcha. Come to think of it I suppose adding slat armour is more likely to make a heavily armoured vehicle survive intact than a lighter one (as in geometrically more and not just additive), hadn't thought of that.

[Apocal]

No, but sound recce tactics (such as use of ground) do as well as good old fashioned combined arms techniques such as suppression of the ATGM launcher by supporting callsigns, overwatch and bounding overwatch (or Caterpillar and Leap Frog if you prefer) do.

I think you missed what I saying: When it gets hit, that track is toast, slats or no slats.

Gotcha. Come to think of it I suppose adding slat armour is more likely to make a heavily armoured vehicle survive intact than a lighter one (as in geometrically more and not just additive), hadn't thought of that.

Possibly. Haven't done any all-angle testing, it's just that even with markedly more cautious tactics I still lose more vics and tracks in BF than even with Marines.

[Flanker15]

Does slat armor add any protection bonus in CM:SF other than the chance to disarm certain older HEAT warhead.

I imagine it has a spaced armor effect if the warhead goes off on the slats.

[gibsonm]

I think you missed what I saying: When it gets hit, that track is toast, slats or no slats.

Sure but my point is that if you use it as a recce vehicle to “sneak and peak” (stay in the low ground, dismount the crew as required, do the close recce, then mount up again) then you can get good life out of them before they “toast”.

Most people however seem to charge them unsupported into some urban environment and then complain because they don’t last as long as a M1 or CR2.

[gibsonm]

Does slat armor add any protection bonus in CM:SF other than the chance to disarm certain older HEAT warhead.

I imagine it has a spaced armor effect if the warhead goes off on the slats.

Well its exactly like spaced armour.

Spaced armour doesn’t have to be big plates of metal attached to the side of a Panzer IV for example. Steel Mesh, Chicken Wire (as used in Vietnam) or current slat / bar armour all achieve the same aim of detonating the incoming round some distance before its preferred “stand off“ range to reduce or nullify its shaped charge effect.

Bar / Slat armour does have the advantage of achieving the effect of a solid sheet of metal without the weight and limited visibility issues.

Of course now Anti Armour rounds are developing capabilities such as tandem warheads, etc. to defeat spaced armour.

It just another facet of the whole Penetration Vs Protection “battle” between AFV designers and anti armour weapon designers.

[MikeyD]

'Some' (ahem) have been wondering about the utilty of including non-cage Scimitars in the game. Gibsonm's point about Jackal applies to Scimitar as well. Not being weighted down by a cage would make Scimitar smaller, faster, stealthier... and more likely to die when they charge into an urban environment. But only slightly more likely. RPGs eat my Scimitars for lunch, cage or not.

[gibsonm]

'Gibsonm's point about Jackal applies to Scimitar as well.

I was talking about Scimitar.

[RommL]

Not being weighted down by a cage would make Scimitar smaller, faster, stealthier... and more likely to die when they charge into an urban environment. But only slightly more likely. RPGs eat my Scimitars for lunch, cage or not.

How many scenarios happening in urban environment?

A good party of these scenarios are situated outside a big city, therefore why to use the scimitar in urban zone that this is not his role?

[gibsonm]

How many scenarios happening in urban environment?

A good party of these scenarios are situated outside a big city, therefore why to use the scimitar in urban zone that this is not his role?

Well a few do have the Objective in an urban area (or cluster of buildings) of what may otherwise be a rural map.

But you have identified the main issue is that players tend not to employ assets “correctly”. That’s no one’s fault as most players tend not to come from a military background, let alone relevant country and therefore that try stuff and if it works then great otherwise people say “Scimitar sucks“ etc.

So while you might expect a player whose other occupation is as a member of a Brit Cav Regt to employ Scimitar properly (and hopefully with a long life expectancy), a US Army player used to Bradley might expect too much and as a result they die early.

A classic example is I’ll bet most players use Scimitar with the crews always mounted.

Various limitations in the game engine (not huge issues, just stuff that would take a huge amount of effort to “fix” for a small gain) forces you to expose the vehicle more than you would normally so they draw fire and die.

The alternative which can be done in the game, park the vehicle in dead ground, dismount, do the close recce with a better chance of survival, return to the vehicle and rejoin the fight.

Similarly I think most players forsake the range / sighting advantages that most AFV’s have and tend to want to close right in on the enemy. All this does is play to the enemy’s strength by letting them use more weapons and increase the chance of a hit.

Another is keeping AFV’s static and engaging in some sort of duel / slug fest instead of firing, moving, firing, etc.

All of these are examples of where someone who has had the benefit of a few zillion dollars training probably gets more out of a platform than the “average” player who just lines everything up and charges the objective.

[gibsonm]

To continue the ramble for a brief spell ...

I have thought of suggesting that we get people from the various corps / branches to write up a section on “How to use X” but the problems with that are:

1. You may not have enough knowledgeable people to write all the parts up.

2. You may have the people but they may not have the interest.

3. You may have the people and the coverage but BTS / BFC may not be able to afford the production of an extra 100 pages of “how to” Guide.

4. Even if you made it you can’t force everyone to read / follow it and people would still complain about how “Scimitar suck” even if they haven’t read the section on Scimitar (or ignored it) before they fought the battle.

5. At the end of the day CM:SF is a generalisation, not a 100.00% mega accurate simulation of RL, so even if you wrote such a guide based on RL, those tactics may not apply (and don’t in many cases) 100% to the CM:SF universe.

6. Lastly, one of the quirks about tactics is the science / art issue. Often employing something out of role is what is needed to win and you might end up with people who read the “How to” Guide, employed them that way and lost.

End ramble.

[GSX]

5. At the end of the day CM:SF is a generalisation, not a 100.00% mega accurate simulation of RL, so even if you wrote such a guide based on RL, those tactics may not apply (and don’t in many cases) 100% to the CM:SF universe.

Totally agree there. You also need to know how the game itself plays and use this in conjunction with how RL plays.