Gill deployment

[Euri]

A brief question. Can Gill Anti tank missiles be deployed in a building or only on open terrain and rooftops?

[Erwin]

I hope someone answers this. It is confusing as to which ATGM's and which MG's can set up and fire from inside buildings.

eg: Been playing CMA and the Russian MG's apparently cannot be in buildings to fire.

[Euri]

Nobody has any idea on where ATGMs may be fired from? The answer may be obvious to all you with military background but not for me.

[Erik Springelkamp]

You can easily make a little scenario to test it out.

Put a Gill team in a building, and put a Syrian tank at a mile distance. Then see what happens and report back.

[ZPB II]

Did some quick testing and it seems the Gill cannot be fired from inside a building.

[abneo3sierra]

As a general rule, missiles whose launcher has to be deployed will not fire from inside of a building,while in CMSF most "RPG" types seem able to be fired from inside of one.

There may be some exceptions to this as in game I have only really messed with a handful of the available ones, but it seems to hold true for the ones I have used... so "in game" it is usually safe to fire the single-shooter missiles like RPG/Panzerfaust/etc from a room,but look to deploy your "team"shooter ATGMs from a rooftop (in most cases, a flat one) or from concealed ground positions (probably preferable)

Ron

[Erwin]

"deployable" won't fire from inside buildings... Thanks for this good rule of thumb.

Any exceptions to the "deployable rule?"

Also, what missiles (not RPG's) other than Javelins can launch from bldg interior?

[abneo3sierra]

For the most part, I have only messed with the US Army, USMC, and German Army, so mostly have not even noticed what all is available, though I now actually OWN all of the modules.

I know that Panzerfaust (German) is also able to fire from inside of a building (along the same line as RPG-type) While Milan (deployable) is unable to. Thus far I have not seen any exceptions to this rule,and have not even been able to see all of the opfor weapons yet, though in their case, again, the deployable launchers are not able to. IRL, most of these weapons that deploy on a launcher, have a tremendous back blast, which is probably the reason for not being able to deploy in game from inside of a closed area.

[Erwin]

makes sense. thanks.

[ZPB II]

The thing is, the Gil has a soft-launch feature and should be fireable from enclosed spaces. Also, the NATO module treats ATGMs really strangely, IMO. The Spike-MR comes with a tripod, but you can't deploy it ingame. Also the Eryx has a tripod, but is not deployable.

[Erwin]

<Slaps head> Aw jeez, here we go again... I just wish the friggin manual would actually provide info dealing with stuff like this. And this is only one issue.

These forums are kept alive/clogged by frustrated players (like moi) trying to play the game knowledgeably, and it seems impossible.

[ZPB II]

I have to disagree a bit, I mean, I can't argue the fact that you have people asking questions but I wouldn't go so far as calling this being clogged with players asking questions because the manual is incomprehensive or somesuch...

I found it took very little in getting acquinted with pretty much every feature on offer. I didn't read the manual from cover to cover but it catered to all questions I had. There are certain "fuzzy" issues, but those I like, because it makes things more realistic. I don't recall seeing a mention or indicator about which ATGMs pack a soft-launch, feature though. Like, I'm pretty sure the AT4 can be fired from buildings in CMSF, and the US army for a few years has only bought AT4 CS versions with reduced backblast...But the game doesn't mention it being the CS version. On the other hand, I am fairly confident that the backblast on the normal version is of not such power that it would completely prohibit firing from enclosed spaces, only making precautions more important...

Then again, I consider myself good at playing games, since I consistently play games really well in statistical terms (Kill/Death ratio in Bad Company 2 and Black Ops, Win/Loss rate in League of Legends, arena rating in World of Warcraft etc.) so I confess I might not be in the middlegrounds of the learner curve.

[abneo3sierra]

Actually Erwin, the main reason I sounded so..mm.."lawyerly" in my earlier reply, was because some of the ones that irl can be fired from inside, like Dutch ones mentioned.

It is why I was pretty careful to say "in the game" and refuse to make a outright statement based upon real world thinking, as far as the game...see, I am learning from people such as yourself :-) The "deployable" launchers in game, I have not found an exception yet, although in the real world there ALWAYS will be exceptions. Just remember what I have read you write several times on these forums.."it's a game...it's a game..." :-)

[ZPB II]

Also one point that I haven't really tested but thought it bring up...The engine abstracts damage to buildings, which is why you see soldiers spotting and shooting through walls. The building has taken damage so the game abstracts holes and such.

So I was wondering if you could shoot out of a well-ventilated damaged building with, say, an SPG-9.

[Erwin]

Yesh, thanks for reminding me, abneo.

Zeb: I have read all the manuals, and while maybe 10% was really important and useful, the rest I call "info candy" or "detail candy" cos it's info of little use in learning how to play the game well, but it looks impressive and gives the illusion that the game is like RL.

However, as I delved more into CM2, my ferret-like persistence towards understanding the game has been thwarted by the masses of inconsistancies and vagueness, and common sense or knowledge of RL units often works against one.

Just a few examples: One has little idea what the vertical ammo bars are for arty and air; scouts and snipers don't have special training; sniper ammo is all over the place - and some you can resupply IF you have the correct vehicle, but which ones?; ATGM AFV's with telescopic thingies, can't stay as hidden as they should; unitil this thread I didn't know what ATGM's could be fired from inside a building; ditto MG's and so. If we go over the threads from the last 12 months I bet we'll find dozens more.

That doesn't mean it's not a great game, and I thoroughly enjoy playing. But, every now and then I get sucked into the dream that it is a "realistic" game and hence my frustration - until humane folks like abneo remind me to "not worry and be happy."

[ZPB II]

Most of that goes into the category "lack of polish" meaning the UI issues and the manual.

Yeah, telescoping optics are useless, but recon vehicles do spot better, just not as hidden as they should be. ATGM vehicles were utterly worthless when CMSF was released, I don't know exactly what's been done with them but when used realistically (keyhole position far, far away with 0,75-1 km LOS) I've had tremendous success with them.

I'm on the fence about scouts and snipers, I found they accomplish their task pretty fine. Don't treat them like Navy SEALs in ghillie suits, you rarely see that on the battlefield. They're already small teams that spot well and remain out of sight, what more would there be to add as special training? Most armed forces "run of the mill" scouts and snipers don't really receive that much special training to make them distinguished, we're not talking premier or special forces here. I just feel people load up terrible expectations on grunts that are given a scoped rifle and taught how to orienteer. Hell, most scouting training has nothing to do with the actual battle itself, but the actions preceding it.

But yeah, there are issues, some severe some not so. It's not perfect, but damn good. I'd still go so far as to say it is pretty damn realistic. Rare are the people who would want to play a game that goes further on the realism scale than this. I'm talking scenarios which consist of watching your men count grains of sand, hoping for some action...Or battles with the amount of artillery and CAS that you'd expect on a frontline sector, mainly walking casually over smoldering ruins...

[abneo3sierra]

Also one point that I haven't really tested but thought it bring up...The engine abstracts damage to buildings, which is why you see soldiers spotting and shooting through walls. The building has taken damage so the game abstracts holes and such.

So I was wondering if you could shoot out of a well-ventilated damaged building with, say, an SPG-9.

I think this may be possible, have to run some controlled tests though. I am 90% certain that playing a scenario with Germans vs mixed Syrian Spec. Forces/uncons..that something that almost HAD to be an Sagger ATGM smoked one of my Marders. I thoroughly pounced on the location the fire came from, and the PzG's wiped out a Sagger team that looked like it was leaving a smashed up building. Playing real time though, and couldn't back track it to see if they were really inside, but this is a good point if so.

[Erwin]

I understand what you're saying Zeb, but your "keyhole position far, far away with 0,75-1 km LOS) I've had tremendous success with them" - well yes, keyhole is xnt for ANY unit, so you're using the ATGM AFV as if it were like any other vehicle.

Also, scouts and snipers receive tremendous training (at least in the US) akin to Green Berets and Pararescue (at least according to mil channel docs).

Once I learned and understood where things broke down in the game, it's not a problem. It's not that it spoils a terrific game.

But, I was irritated, felt cheated maybe, that it took so long (for me) to learn that these units are basically fudged, when we have so many other threads/arguments here about "how realistic CM2 is."

This stuff should have simply been in the manuals. (I suspect that BFC wanted to pretend that the game was more "realistic" than it actually is, in order to cozy up to mil types re contracts etc.) But, you guys are correct. It doesn't spoil a fabulous game once one knows these limitations.

[ZPB II]

Well, an ATGM vehicle is mostly just that, a plus-sized ATGM launcher on wheels. It doesn't really have much uses. Is there an army that conquered a place using light ATGM platforms? I remember the Toyota wars stuff, but...

Well, I can't speak for the US Army (which of course makes this somewhat moot, since that's the crux) but in the FDF what training snipers and scouts received in our armoured jaeger formations differed very little in terms of CMSF scope. Everything that needed to be known in a tactical engagement was taught to even the most basic infantrymen. The difference is how much you train, and well, you can set your rifle squads as regular and snipers to elite if you want to. But there simply aren't many sets of theories that scouts are taught that jaegers aren't that directly relate to a firefight. How does one teach someone to be better at spotting? Silouttes of enemy targets, the theory of camouflage and movement, enemy tactics regarding placement, the strategy of attack & defense regarding the best possible locations and so on are taught to everyone. Our rifle squads had the same expensive Israeli TI kit, binoculars, scopes etc. as the scouts...And knew how to operate them.

I'm not seeing the big deal regarding these two units. Of course there is always minor tweaking to do but I simply cannot imagine ATGM vehicles and scouts & snipers in CSMF as fundamentally flawed.

[Erwin]

My understanding is (and anyone who knows different plz step in) that US scouts and snipers are given much higher training like SpecOps and they are considered elite (just not as elite as SEALS and DELTA).

[Dietrich]

My two bits (two cents adjusted for inflation):

Well, there's elite, and then there's elite. I would expect a USMC Force Recon scout or a SEAL sniper to be more "elite" than, say, a regular US Army scout or sniper. But within the same branch, such as the US Army, I would expect a scout or a sniper to be more "elite" than a rifleman or machine-gunner.

[Erwin]

Certainly snipers in CM1 were actually quite useful. In CM2, it's harder to tell if they are doing much that any other units can or cannot do.

Maybe they can shoot more accurately at longer ranges. But, it's the way they can be spotted so easily that is a problem. It's as risky to use em for recon or simply hiding and observing as any other inf.

It doesn't break the game, but it is one example of a retrograde step from CM1.

[Jonny(FGM)]

I think the Cmx1 to CMx2 sniper comparison is a bit unfair at the moment for a few reasons.

1. In CMx1 they were one man teams, one man is a lot harder to spot than 2 or 3

2. Snipers had a massive concealment bonus in CMx1, probably too much so as you could walk your troops into the same foxhole as them and not spot them

3. The terrain in CMx1 offered a lot lot more cover and concealment that the desert (except CMAK of course) in CMx2

I think once CMBN comes out we can make a bit more of a fairer comparison

[Erwin]

"you could walk your troops into the same foxhole as them and not spot them..."

Well, yes that's what they are (supposedly) trained for. We're not talking about squad shrpshooters, but dedicated snipers, and sniper school is tough and trains especially re concealment.

My theory is that the mil establishment doesn't like SpecOps of any type. The dominant mindset (at least as of 5+ years ago) was they wanted to have their masses of AFV speeding across the plains in Cold War era mass battles.

They really did not like the idea of small groups of specially trained types making a big difference as it would call into question why spend all that money on Maginot Line -type material (tanks, subs, next gen aircraft etc etc.) Since BFC wants to cozy up to that market, (and look at the demographics on this site) they may have downgraded the abilities of snipers and other "better trained types." (Just a theory.)

Just cos the game only gets 95+ right means CMSF is still brilliant. But, it is/was a disappointment to learn from trial and error that some things in CM2 do not work as well as CM1.

[abneo3sierra]

Well, I think I agree with Jonny(FGM)'s # 3 above as a possible reason. In concealed positions, with proper terrain, I am still having a difficult time spotting snipers. I have set up a handful of test scenarios to see how they do, and in about 80% of cases so far, they are unable to be spotted at all from a vehicle,unless it is opened up and within 25m or so of them with a covered arc. The same setup against infantry squads, took out 3 (20%),4(50%),and 5 (10%) squad members before any return fire at all was generated (which I assume to mean,that the squad did not see the sniper. This was in nearly 'perfect' sniper country (50% of tests from a building in urban, 50% from forested terrain)

If the sniper on the other hand is just sitting in the open, he still got off first shot in 8 of the 10 tries, but was quickly neutralized as soon as he did..