CMSF Walkthrough

[tyrspawn]

I'd get Marines before getting Brits, honestly.

you on xfire still? I recently got the xfire plugin for Pidgin so I should be idling. Interested in some 1v1?

[Apocal]

Yeah, I'm on xfire now.

[tyrspawn]

Yeah, I'm on xfire now.

wtf.... I guess this plugin is being buggy, I don't see you on.

[SlapHappy]

Tyrspawn

The reason you had little success with the heavy 155 artillery barrage against the barracks building troops in the "Berm Battle" is because you were using "anti-personnel" fire which could also be more accurately called "air-burst" fire.

It's excellent for troops in the open or trenches but does little against building-borne enemies - even the heaviest of rounds. Unfortunately, if you want to preserve those buildings, you need to find another solution, because the 155's in normal fire will definitely bring those buildings down. However, you're only penalized for that if the scenario is specifically designed that way.

Also, it would have been very effective to have used some of those 155 assets in a "linear" attack pattern and anti-personnel fire on the big trenchline on the left of the map.

Very effective, indeed.

[tyrspawn]

Tyrspawn

The reason you had little success with the heavy 155 artillery barrage against the barracks building troops in the "Berm Battle" is because you were using "anti-personnel" fire which could also be more accurately called "air-burst" fire.

It's excellent for troops in the open or trenches but does little against building-borne enemies - even the heaviest of rounds. Unfortunately, if you want to preserve those buildings, you need to find another solution, because the 155's in normal fire will definitely bring those buildings down. However, you're only penalized for that if the scenario is specifically designed that way.

Also, it would have been very effective to have used some of those 155 assets in a "linear" attack pattern and anti-personnel fire on the big trenchline on the left of the map.

Very effective, indeed.

personnel = air burst?

general = HE?

anti-tank = tungsten?

I never really had the time to figure that out while playing because i was busy with doing other things like making sure everyone was alive.

doesn't linear just mean one point?

[Gen. J-sun]

The armor brings in a tighter shot grouping. If on general the FO may call for fire for effect within say, 75m, where 'armor' will be corrected to within 25m or so. There's no evidence that armor causes any different fuse settings or ammo settings in my testing.

Linear is where you pick 2 points and the artillery will spread the shots between the two so you can walk rounds up an entire trench causing all sorts of pain and anguish.

You can use 81 mortars against armor but mortars are only effective against stationary armor and it may cost you a few rounds unless you move up to 120s. It's a good way of finishing off an m-kill. Point targeting a unit will also cause the artillery to 'chase' them provided the FO has continuous LOS.

Hope that helps, nice videos.

[Apocal]

personnel = air burst?

general = HE?

anti-tank = tungsten?

General is a mix of point detonating and airbursting. Armor is the same HE, but with a slightly tighter grouping.

I never really had the time to figure that out while playing because i was busy with doing other things like making sure everyone was alive.

With artillery batteries, Area Fifty Meters-->General-->Heavy-->Short works ninety percent of all the situations you face. It actually covers about 75 meters effectively, infantry suppressed with a few routed, armor banged around if not knocked out, light vehicles burning, buildings lose a rooftop, contour lines changed, etc.

Mortars are a different kettle of fish; eighty-ones are roughly comparable to one-oh-five howitzers, one-twenties are a small step behind one-five-five howitzers. Sixties are pretty weak, more powerful than forty mike-mike, but they are responsive, lethal to exposed infantry and have ammo for plenty of missions provided they are short or quick. Great for shutting down machine guns and ATGMs in trenches.

I like sixties and one-five-five. One-oh-five, what's the point? Eighty-one sits in an awkward position, it's not really better at killing infantry than sixty, either kills them all, it's not really useful against buildings and it has a lot less ammo on-hand. One-twenty works wonders on smaller buildings, but one-five-five does everything it does, usually better on top of having more ammo. The only difference is if you lose your FO, then one-five-five is as slow as Syrian mortars, like nine or eleven minutes for a fire mission. Then you realize one-twenties are only good enough to put out like five or six fire missions before they run dry.

doesn't linear just mean one point?

Linear.

Point means one point.

[tyrspawn]

General is a mix of point detonating and airbursting. Armor is the same HE, but with a slightly tighter grouping.

With artillery batteries, Area Fifty Meters-->General-->Heavy-->Short works ninety percent of all the situations you face. It actually covers about 75 meters effectively, infantry suppressed with a few routed, armor banged around if not knocked out, light vehicles burning, buildings lose a rooftop, contour lines changed, etc.

Mortars are a different kettle of fish; eighty-ones are roughly comparable to one-oh-five howitzers, one-twenties are a small step behind one-five-five howitzers. Sixties are pretty weak, more powerful than forty mike-mike, but they are responsive, lethal to exposed infantry and have ammo for plenty of missions provided they are short or quick. Great for shutting down machine guns and ATGMs in trenches.

I like sixties and one-five-five. One-oh-five, what's the point? Eighty-one sits in an awkward position, it's not really better at killing infantry than sixty, either kills them all, it's not really useful against buildings and it has a lot less ammo on-hand. One-twenty works wonders on smaller buildings, but one-five-five does everything it does, usually better on top of having more ammo. The only difference is if you lose your FO, then one-five-five is as slow as Syrian mortars, like nine or eleven minutes for a fire mission. Then you realize one-twenties are only good enough to put out like five or six fire missions before they run dry.

Linear.

Point means one point.

Thanks for the info. Would armor be effective at shelling buildings?

[Apocal]

Thanks for the info. Would armor be effective at shelling buildings?

Never tried it.

[theFightingSeabee]

I usually just use General on buildings. I think that's the best bet.

[Dietrich]

Would armor be effective at shelling buildings?

I usually just use General on buildings. I think that's the best bet.

It depends on the height/footprint of the targeted building. My experience has been that General yields a tighter grouping (more suitable for engaging MBTs and IFVs, obviously), and as such it is more suitable for small buildings than General. The advantage of General, though, is that it yields a somewhat wider grouping, which can inflict casualties by landing right next to the building rather than just collapsing the roof on the enemy personnel within.

Anyone know why 155mm howitzer sections and 60mm mortar sections have relatively plentiful ammo, whereas 81mm and 120mm mortar sections have proportionately much less ammo? In scenarios with HBCT forces (with 120mm mortars on call), I'm left feeling a bit short-changed in the artillery support department. (Of course, HBCT forces have beaucoup direct-fire assets.) I can't help but think that the 155mm howitzers (M777, M109, AS90... and soon PzH 2000, I hope) are the workhorses of the artillery arm.

[dan/california]

It is my general impression that the same size ammo truck is following all of the different size mortars around. A a bigger shell translates to fewer rounds per truck. The range advantages of the bigger shells are not obvious in CMSF. I am also fairly certain that CMSF uses the book ammo load-outs.

155s get much bigger trucks.

[Apocal]

Anyone know why 155mm howitzer sections and 60mm mortar sections have relatively plentiful ammo, whereas 81mm and 120mm mortar sections have proportionately much less ammo?

A sixty weighs four pounds, an eighty-one weighs between ten and sixteen, a one-twenty weighs thirty-five. Mortars don't have the kind of logistical support that artillery does, since they are much closer to the fighting; more or less they have what they have onboard mortar vics/tracks and not much else.

In scenarios with HBCT forces (with 120mm mortars on call), I'm left feeling a bit short-changed in the artillery support department. (Of course, HBCT forces have beaucoup direct-fire assets.) I can't help but think that the 155mm howitzers (M777, M109, AS90... and soon PzH 2000, I hope) are the workhorses of the artillery arm.

Howitzers are the workhorses. Mortars are well liked because they are organic to the supported formation. Barring highly unusual circumstances a battalion commander will always have a platoon of medium or heavy mortars available to influence his fight. A company commander will always have his mortar section available.

[MikeyD]

I'm left feeling a bit short-changed in the artillery support department

Do you mean making your own scenarios or playing the game-supplied scenarios?

For game-supplied designers were in a bind. Supply too much artillery support and you might as well include a lone infantryman to walk accross the map over the charred bodies to take the objective. So they often err other the side of too little artillery support. The justification for too little could be beyond-scenario problems like our guys receiving counter-battery fire... or another firefight down the road with troops in even worse shape than you!

[theFightingSeabee]

I just ran a quick test: It wasn't decisive.

1. The larger caliber artillery DID knock down buildings faster.

2. General knocked down an 8 story building first, then anti-armor shortly after. Anti-personnel did less damage to the building, but did still cause casualties.

3. Placing rounds NEXT to buildings with troops on the 1st floor caused only SLIGHTLY more casualties than targeting the buildings themselves.

4. Anti-armor arty seemed NEARLY as effective, if not the SAME as General.

5. Troops in shorter buildings seemed to survive building collapse more than troops in taller buildings that collapsed.

6. I did NOT notice any real difference in accuracy between different types shot by the same guns.

Very interesting. This makes me rethink the way I use arty. I always thought that General and Anti-armor fire had more of a significant difference.

[Dietrich]

Do you mean making your own scenarios or playing the game-supplied scenarios?

For game-supplied designers were in a bind. Supply too much artillery support and you might as well include a lone infantryman to walk accross the map over the charred bodies to take the objective. So they often err other the side of too little artillery support. The justification for too little could be beyond-scenario problems like our guys receiving counter-battery fire... or another firefight down the road with troops in even worse shape than you!

I was referring to lack of company-level artillery support in an HBCT battalion. The TOE of a whole HBCT battalion includes only four 120mm mortars. An SBCT battalion has the usual four-tube 120mm mortar section but has two 81mm mortars per company. But considering the on-map firepower of a typical HBCT force, it's no biggie that there are no medium or light mortars to be provided.

Most often the provided artillery support is suitable to the situation, including scenarios where artillery is minimal or absent because of the tactical context.

[tyrspawn]

got an hour and a half of real time multiplayer action being encoded for upload right now

[Paper Tiger]

tyrspawn:

what program do you use to record your videos? Sorry if you've already mentioned this but I'm just getting ready to go to work and don't have time to read through the whole thread.

[Johnny Cigar]

tyrspawn:

what program do you use to record your videos? Sorry if you've already mentioned this but I'm just getting ready to go to work and don't have time to read through the whole thread.

He uses FRAPS.

[MikeyD]

Wow, some people definitely have better luck with FRAPS than others. More than one person has cursed the framerate hit while trying to record.Tyrspwn must be running off a top-secret NSA supercomputer!

[dan/california]

He could just understand multi-core processors better than most of us. CMSF only uses one after all.

On a vaguely related subject they are getting serious about making GPUs accessible for more general calculations. It will speed LOS checks right up some day.

Of course he could have a desktop super computer of his very own as well. But that would require me to turn green with jealousy, a very unhealthful shade of green.

[tyrspawn]

Wow, some people definitely have better luck with FRAPS than others. More than one person has cursed the framerate hit while trying to record.Tyrspwn must be running off a top-secret NSA supercomputer!

Negative - if you watch some of the urban missions that I have uploaded, it's clear my framerate sucks. FRAPS (or any fullscreen capture) does significantly lower the framerate (1/3rd to 1/2 depending on the size of the capture).

I have a lowend machine, Pentium D 3.0 ghz, 2 gb RAM, only good thing is my video card GTX 260.

P.S. I also use Windows Movie Maker to compile/edit all the clips together and mix it with audio commentary (where applicable). In the past I have used Adobe Premier to edit as well.

[tyrspawn]

Some assorted clips of my first multiplayer game, getting owned by the veteran Mayes (known as Apocal on this forum). This was my first time playing with elite difficulty mode so the lack of unified spotting was an annoying obstacle to overcome. I thought I did decent, considering it was my first time playing, and it was against a veteran player. Mayes is a tricky bastard, who loves ambushes. You will notice that the last battle seems repeated twice, this is because my game crashed and we had to restart it. I basically throw the game the 2nd time we played it because I was frustrated, foolishly rushing at the end with a mechanized wave in what I dubbed my "Ardennes counter-offensive." Hope to play again soon.

A perfect artillery strike I landed against Apocal's forward observers!

[zukkov]

thanks for all the vids! I'm 99.9% sure that i'd get very annoyed at the constant pausing in that H2H rt match though. lol..

[Apocal]

1. First things first, Allah's Fist is not a good H2H scenario. All except one Abrams kill was via T-72 teleportation. The Syrians suck so badly that all except two ATGMs I fired at his Strykers nosedived into the ground. The tanks routinely missed stationary targets with ATGMs. Ironically, the one kill I did achieve was against a moving target with conventional shell.

Not a win for me at all.

2. 51:00 in the video. This mission is something I threw together in about fifteen or twenty minutes, using one of the QB maps.

Meeting engagement, blue on blue, both of them balanced heavy companies, two tank platoons, two mechanized infantry platoons, 120mm mortar section and FO + BFIST. Mortars came in as five minute reinforcements to replicate coming off the march and getting firecapped upon initial contact reports. More pragmatically, it's because my usual MP opponent will ruthlessly and shamelessly bombard a starting area with preplanned fires.

My intent was to put my tanks, reasonably seperated, in overwatch positions covering his likely routes of advance, while holding my mechanized infantry in place, waiting for a suitable context for their participation. Ideally, this context would be simply occupying the ground admist a background of burning enemy tracks.

As you can see, he largely won the overwatch battle, all of his tanks were able to apply firepower to my sequentially committed tanks. The exceptions was one tank in a position approximately 500 meters away from the destroyed tank platoon and another I was holding as a reserve.

Those two tanks kept me in the fight and as his Brads tried to flank what he thought was a found and fixed force, they got eaten up against the last tank I had in overwatch.

His game crashed before mortars could become a factor, his Bradley platoon showed that TOW is no substitute for armor and infantry either advanced without problems or died a lot. The deciding factor was whether tanks had suppressed the enemy.

3. The real MP match right here, no deus ex machina, no crashes. Starts at 1:05:00 or so. Same setup, different gameplan on my part. Forget all that stuff about "best thing to kill a tank is another tank", I was going to use Javelins to do most of it. Combined arms means never having to say you're sorry. The only reason I had tanks move forward was to give his tanks something to shoot at and distract them from the impending hail of ATGMs.

Meanwhile, my mechanized infantry would move to exploit some terrain and establish a solid base of fire and overwatch position themselves, both to kill tanks and, once his tanks were a non-factor and mortars were firecapped, dominate the OBJ with direct and indirect fires.

I'd let my fire superiority work it's magic, attriting his infantry into nothingness on the OBJ itself, once they'd been suitably handled, I'd move my own carefully husbanded reserve in to slaughter the survivors.

Profit.

I worried a bit about mortars, but from watching one of his videos, I remembered he had a fairly low opinion of mortars, even the, IMHO, excellent 120mm, so I chanced a bit that he wouldn't effectively employ them. Other than that, I didn't have many other concerns.

You can see how well the plan worked out in the video. His "Ardennes Counter Offensive" could've worked, but I caught a brief sight of tanks moving around and I decided to move an infantry team to better overwatch position and saw a thundering herd of Bradleys parked there. Holy telegraphed countermove, Batman!

I position my reserve to cut his maneuver off at the pass and break off some Javelin shooters to cover as well, then spin both my base of fire Bradleys around so he gets to get it from both ends. I was confident the infantry platoon at the base of fire position could handle what was left of his infantry.

He took the initiative and used it to drive straight into my guns, rockets, and missiles. It was a much, much closer run thing than I wanted it to be or expected though. Had he managed to get another 150m closer, he would've had my infantry reserve under fire with either Brads or Abrams and they didn't have Javelins.

Bad ju ju right there.

Hard fought, hard won.

EDIT: Additionally, I didn't employ mortars too effectively, my FO was killed early on and I didn't see to what. I was a little too impatient to wait a full six minutes so I called in maybe two fire missions total. Although had it come down to my infantry vs. his infantry on the OBJ, I probably would've plastered either the OBJ or his overwatch behind it with HE/VT.