DaveDash Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 I am having a blast at the moment playing Battalion sized engagements of ether US Army or Marines vs the Brits. Just fiddling around in the scenario editor using the quickmaps, and adding in units. It really has a different feel to the game, you don't feel so bad losing guys going up against a respectable foe, and has a more "total war" type feel to the game as you don't have to limit yourself as much. I find casualty numbers are quite high, around 50-100KIA and similiar WIA against a competent foe in these engagements (going up against Western artillery is not nice). It also "feels" somewhat more "realistic" than US vs US engagements. I do find the Brits tend to lack overall firepower, especially going up against the Marines, but they're tenacious foes and even a small number of them can ruin your day. It is A LOT of fun, especially light infantry battles only, especially now that HUMVEES etc seem to work properly. The new AI is great too in these battles, I must say. I highly recommend it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Got a link to a scenario? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 You need to send Brit mechanized infantry against Marine infantry to have a chance, the dismounted numbers and firepower of the latter mean that your infantry essentially cannot win between 100-300 meters, maybe more, unless you have a very solid terrain advantage. And they have more men in their squads, so just sitting back and trading casualties means a steady snowball effect that generally leaves him with 8-10 effectives and you with none. But don't let that terrain advantage come from a building or Mr. Thermobaric will come pay you a visit, utterly ruining whoever was in there. The lack of dedicated assault rocket launcher like the SMAW really shows. And it hurts. It is a lot of fun though. A real lot of fun. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted September 12, 2009 Author Share Posted September 12, 2009 Got a link to a scenario? Just fire up the scenario editor, load some of the quick maps, make one guy the defender and off you go. A lot of fun! I think there is one scenario in the official Brits release by George MC also. The lack of dedicated assault rocket launcher like the SMAW really shows. And it hurts. Indeed. I also find the Brits make better attackers than defenders, given their wide range of mobility options etc. When they remain static they tend to get chewed up pretty bad by U.S. forces. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempV Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Blue vs Blue is quite fun now with British, however they are outclassed by US in firepower terms. I found 2 perfect matches: Mech Brits vs Marines and Arm Brit Inf vs SBCT, thought in the latter case AI doesn't use Javelins but human opponent surely will. Also I've found with equal settings Stryker Infantry gets much more troops in QB. Of course they have 9-man squads compairing 7-man Britsish, but they also have MGS which are Warrior killers. So I think -20% to US force will do a fair compensation. Indeed. I also find the Brits make better attackers than defenders, given their wide range of mobility options etc. When they remain static they tend to get chewed up pretty bad by U.S. forces. I think any static force in this game is in bad position. Artillery (even Red Arty) is an overkill against infantry. Meeting engagement is the best option for Blue vs Blue to my opinion. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted September 12, 2009 Share Posted September 12, 2009 Mortars are required for any kind of combined arms with the light infantry companies. Otherwise you get to trade bullets with a machine gun and dig it out of position Iwo Jima-style, which is pretty pretty costly, just like RL. You can use Javelins, but they are scarce and if the enemy has more strongpoints than you have Javs, you're right back in the hurt locker, eating 7.62. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted September 13, 2009 Author Share Posted September 13, 2009 Mortars are required for any kind of combined arms with the light infantry companies. Otherwise you get to trade bullets with a machine gun and dig it out of position Iwo Jima-style, which is pretty pretty costly, just like RL. You can use Javelins, but they are scarce and if the enemy has more strongpoints than you have Javs, you're right back in the hurt locker, eating 7.62. Yep, after running out of artillery it took the combined effort and mass of 2.5 companies of Marines to take a reverse slope defence position off 1.5 companies of British defenders. 120 KIA 150 WIA later... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted September 13, 2009 Share Posted September 13, 2009 After I finish the single player Marines I plan on getting in on some multiplayer Blue vs Blue. It seems that would be the only way of a more even match up. Just can't see the Syrians competing on that level unless they had overhwelming numbers vs Blue.US Amy vs. Marines sounds like a good challange. I found the Brits to be bit low on firepower compared to the two from what I played with them in the demo. I'm so glad the developers allowed the option for blue vs. blue for fun sake away from confrontations that would really happen. Might have get the Brits so I can play against some real British people. US vs UK sounds like some interesting allied competition. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 I think any static force in this game is in bad position. Artillery (even Red Arty) is an overkill against infantry. Meeting engagement is the best option for Blue vs Blue to my opinion. Yes, this has been noted many times -- it's mainly because defenders can't dig proper slit trenches for game engine reasons. Charles had more urgent challenges to work on and BFC contended that any fortification would be of marginal tactical value against modern arty/ ordnance once spotted. I personally disagree, but do accept that they must set priorities. Improvements are expected for Normandy. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DaveDash Posted September 14, 2009 Author Share Posted September 14, 2009 I've actually noticed 81mm and below Mortars are pretty ineffective against U.S. infantry (and vise versa). I've had my squads pounded by Brits airburst munitions, and while I will suffer a lot of "yellows", not many "reds" or worse. The smaller calibre Mortars are pretty ineffective over all at clearing out Western infantry (minus surpression). Body armour perhaps? Western airburst vs Syrian forces is another matter entirely. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apocal Posted September 14, 2009 Share Posted September 14, 2009 Body armour perhaps? More or less. You need a point, heavy, quick fire mission to ensure that a deployed MG or squad in the open will be sufficiently... tenderized. An opponent with a brain is highly unlikely to let you accomplish this however. EDIT: Also, personally I feel 60mm mortars are more effective than 81s in CMSF, because both have the same practical effect on troops in the open (lots of dead/wounded) and the same practical effect on troops under cover/armor (neglible). But 60s have more tubes and more ammo. Western airburst vs Syrian forces is another matter entirely. Along with body armor Syrians, for a variety of reasons, are more likely to rout even if they aren't disabled. 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.