New file at the Repository: A helluva road opening V2 (2011-04-29)

[Battlefront Repository]

That V2 scenario, Blue playable with the Marines and Nato modules, has new setup improvements that will allow the move of the units, to cover either side of the MSR at Johnson airbase. The ANA mounted on Zil’s trucks, may use also MTVR and two small German teams consisting of Marders and of a Fenneck is deployed. For the rest that scenario, is taking in account some tactical issues that have been encountered in the past and present years battles in Afghanistan. For obvious reason all the names of the geographic locations and of Red and Blue units that had been involved are not real. The AO is presently unstable and besides Johnson airport, still not reopen and the Nira Dam FOB and OP that we control, all around is Indian Country The Nira MSR is open every three days, in the morning by the 3rd and 4th Platoons / B Co of the ANA 4th battalion in order to resupply the NIRA FOB and its OP manned by the 2nd Platoon. After a near miss on an Apache last week, theirs assistance in providing security during the road opening has been denied ever since. We have no intelligence on the Mujhadeens groups which seem to have infiltrate in fair numbers since the last 2 weeks in the vicinity of the hamlets of Sidi Bou Saïd, Al Farouk and Hassan. Our forces are made of the ANA B Co / 4th battalion “Suliman” 3 Rifles platoons, HMG and MG section being beefed up with “Dare devil” 3rd Regt, comprising a scout platoon “ hawkeyes”, 2...

More...

[snake_eye]

The complete briefing here after:

That V2 scenario, Blue playable with the Marines and Nato modules, has new setup improvements that will allow the move of the units, to cover either side of the MSR at Johnson airbase. The ANA mounted on Zil’s trucks, may use also MTVR and two small German teams consisting of Marders and of a Fenneck is deployed.

For the rest that scenario, is taking in account some tactical issues that have been encountered in the past and present years battles in Afghanistan. For obvious reason all the names of the geographic locations and of Red and Blue units that had been involved are not real.

The AO is presently unstable and besides Johnson airport, still not reopen and the Nira Dam FOB and OP that we control, all around is Indian Country The Nira MSR is open every three days, in the morning by the 3rd and 4th Platoons / B Co of the ANA 4th battalion in order to resupply the NIRA FOB and its OP manned by the 2nd Platoon.

After a near miss on an Apache last week, theirs assistance in providing security during the road opening has been denied ever since.

We have no intelligence on the Mujhadeens groups which seem to have infiltrate in fair numbers since the last 2 weeks in the vicinity of the hamlets of Sidi Bou Saïd, Al Farouk and Hassan.

Our forces are made of the ANA B Co / 4th battalion “Suliman” 3 Rifles platoons, HMG and MG section being beefed up with “Dare devil” 3rd Regt, comprising a scout platoon “ hawkeyes”, 2nd, 3rd Rifles and 4th Weapon MGS platoons, B Co (-) “Tiger” 2nd Battalion with “Havock” 2 X 81mm mortars in support and Fire Base “Rosario” 4 X 120mm mortars

The ANA has on loan a platoon of 4 MTVR from the Marines 2nd Platoon.

“Tiger” 2nd platoon has its Strykers unavailable due to the fitting of new up armoured kits for the next 2 weeks.

A German ISAF team consisting of 3 Marders from 2nd Plt / 1st Co / 4th battlegroup (one is being repaired and won’t be available) and a Fenneck from 1st Plt Aufklärung CO have been sent to us for familiarization with our tactics and can assist the ANA in the road opening.

The weather forecast for the next 24 hours is west, light wind, warm and dry with a slight haze.

Open the road from Johnson to the Nira OP, starting at 06:10 with the ANA and their support, while providing them a constant overwatch on the MSR Nira from Hill 53, Johnson airbase ridge, the Nira FOB and OP. Be advice that the Hill 54 tower outpost doesn’t respond to our call since 04:00 AM. It is assumed that it has fallen in enemy hands.

The ANA forces and their support will advance and recon by fire, if necessary the MSR up to the Nira OP and then secure the Nira bridge

At 06:10 AM the ANA forces and their support will proceed cautiously as said, and pay a particular attention to hill 54 tower. The tower should be taken and not destroyed in order to provide for a FO, a view of the valley lying ahead. That done the advance can resume. A Recon Platoon (-) of 2 BTR from 3rd Battalion has be called at 05:00 AM and should arrive around 06:20 AM. If the ANA gets into a fight, it should not attempt to get through, but should consolidate and leapfrog forward. Be aware that the road sides and hamlets might still have some scattered mines lying around from unknown minefield dating back to the Russian.

The “Dare Devil” force will assist The ANA in fulfilling its mission, up to the Nira outpost if needs arise, as well as providing security for the airfield by securing the nearby hamlet of Al Farouk.

The ROE is to overrule the use of mortars unto the hamlets, unless absolutely necessary. The destruction of hill 54 tower and of the hamlets houses will have great incidence in the fore coming talks with the province Governor. We don’t need that at a time when we are a month away to be relieved by the UK forces. They say enough that we are too much Gung HO.

Last thing, we have 2nd platoon (-)/C Co/3rd batt/5th regt with 3 brad’s and a support from their 2 X 120mm mortars, that could be available within 2 hours.

That’s all gentlemen, dismiss!

To be only played Blue against red A.I with CMSF - USMC & NATO Modules - V1.31

However a H to H can be played, considering that the Red setup can not be changed.

Designer : Gregory KELLER "Snake eye" 04/29/2011 - Your much needed comments and advices on snake.eye@sfr.fr

[snake_eye]

[snake_eye]

[Erwin]

Awesome. Thank you!

[Erwin]

Snake: I was traveling so only just now had a chance to look at the new version.

Was delighted to see you made lots of improvements that I don't recall anyone even asking for. The mix of units with the Germans etc looks like it will be a LOT of fun!

Now, you have really made us feel like the CO of the base and we have many more options re how to proceed down the road. Lead with the ANA or the German recon? Or, maybe with US recon with ANA and Germans following? Do I send AFV's first, or just the trucks with AFV's, MG's and snipers providing cover?

Maximizing tactical options and fun decisions is what makes a superlative scenario. So thanks for such a terrific improvement!

One question: Am still curious why the recon elements are off on the right flank. Is that historical in some way?

I guess it's a question of how one uses recon troops and what is their function (in a CMSF situation like the one you depicted).

My thought is that you don't send recon troops where you KNOW there are enemy - like you tell us in the briefing. Instead, you send an assault force (if you want to take that location).

My thought would be to either:

1) Send the recon elements down the road to locate ambushes, OR...

2) Send the recon guys along a direction which hopefully has the LEAST likelihood of enemy ambushes so as to get to good spotting positions in the enemy's flank or rear. The object would be to merely ID the enemy strength and composition so they can be neutralized by (ideally) air or arty (or bring up heavier infantry to attack the enemy using the safe route recon has used) while the recon units move onwards to locate other enemy positions.

So, what was your thinking behind the placing the recon units where you did??

[Erwin]

I forgot: Due to the bug in the most recent patch that leaves out the German AT launcher thingy, only the Fennek has one. Suggest that you add a 2nd Fennek so at least both German teams in the Marders can arm themselves with the rockets.

[snake_eye]

I forgot: Due to the bug in the most recent patch that leaves out the German AT launcher thingy, only the Fennek has one. Suggest that you add a 2nd Fennek so at least both German teams in the Marders can arm themselves with the rockets.

Good guess about the Fenneck. That was necessary, till the patch correcting the absence of the launcher in the Marder is released.

Hopefully someone mentioned the Fenneck had such a launcher available in V 1.31

[snake_eye]

Snake: !

One question: Am still curious why the recon elements are off on the right flank. Is that historical in some way?

I guess it's a question of how one uses recon troops and what is their function (in a CMSF situation like the one you depicted).

My thought is that you don't send recon troops where you KNOW there are enemy - like you tell us in the briefing. Instead, you send an assault force (if you want to take that location).

My thought would be to either:

1) Send the recon elements down the road to locate ambushes, OR...

2) Send the recon guys along a direction which hopefully has the LEAST likelihood of enemy ambushes so as to get to good spotting positions in the enemy's flank or rear. The object would be to merely ID the enemy strength and composition so they can be neutralized by (ideally) air or arty (or bring up heavier infantry to attack the enemy using the safe route recon has used) while the recon units move onwards to locate other enemy positions.

So, what was your thinking behind the placing the recon units where you did??

There were no precise real events about the positioning of the Recon elements on the right of the airfield.

One of the reason is mainly a tactical one, deriving from the situation found at the airfield at the beginning of the game.

But before explaining that reason, let me point out, that all you wrote about the employment of Recon and or Attack forces is right.

That is the theory. On the ground, it might be different for many reasons. The first one, is that troops that have been either patrolling and or in contact earlier, need to rest at a determined period.

Usually, they are manning static positions, where their alert status is not at the highest level. That way , they are freeing other troops going in active patrolling and or mission.That is the same for Recon and or attack troops.

On the right side the Recon have a good field of view on the approaches to the airfield. That is from the village and the right far side. They can watch that area, until it is necessary for them to probe the village and why not the ford gateway and maybe the orchards lying beyond.

They can be deployed elsewhere, if the player feels like doing it.

The mounted Strykers platoon is the one to use if an attack is to be made against a localized red element. They can assist and or relieve the recon.

However, the recon teams should be used to identify Red elements and will try to avoid being heavily engaged. Once they are engaged, If they can not breakaway from contact, they should stay in defence and call the attack elements. The attack elements should attack by trying to outflank the enemy, while the recon provides a fire base. The recon team can, also call the mortars to lower the enemy fire.

However, the recon task is mainly to probe and recon main ground features. In that scenario, it should be the high grounds from which they could see Red elements near and or not so far from the MSR. In real events the recon teams are inserted by night by helicopters on peaks and or hills from which they have a clear sight of the road that is going to be used the next morning. They are overwatching the convoy road, before, during and after it goes through.

If someone wants to use them to get to high grounds prior to move the convoy is up to him.

He just has to decide which high ground seems fit for that and how he could get the team there. That simple fact is not an easy task and the recon teams might not be able to get it done without calling for some help.

That is why that scenario has been made and believe me it is not that far away from real issues an officer had to face. It does not mind, if it was in the 50’s, 60’s and up to these days. All the technological tools being provided won’t be available necessarily at the right time and you will have to rely to the bare thing an infantryman has, that is its gun and his feet.

[Erwin]

Thanks for the useful info Snake. Hope you don't mind more questions re "good recon practices."

1) In the frontage depicted in your ROAD OPENING scenario would it be realistic to have each recon team in a completely separate part of the front - ie totally independent and relying solely on stealth?

2) In this instance would they have at least a squad or more of reg inf following to get them out of trouble??

3) Or, would the 2 recon teams stay together so as to support each other, but without any other support?

4) What is the role of the single HQ guy? Does he accompany them on foot to provide quick air/arty support, or is he sitting back in his command AFV with his feet up drinking coffee until something squawks on the radio?

I know that they have their own AFV's for "support." But, I presume that having a loud, dirty spewing AFV trailing you by a couple hundred meters sort of defeats the point of stealthy recon to find good LOS locations from where to spot enemy units(??)

Oh, and so will you add an extra Fennek so the Jerries can have two rocket launchers, or is it a deliberate design choice to only let them have one? (And why is one Marder immobilized - design choice??)

[snake_eye]

To Erwin,

Two shots from the Recon teams and MGS tracks

First of all, to rely on stealth, the 2 recon teams should be deployed without their strikers, at least in that scenario. However, CMSF does not simulate that too much, besides it would take few hours to move a team forward. More, as soon as the team is seeing the enemy, in the game they are most likely seen in return. The stealth effect is immediately lost and they don’t have a fire power sufficient to disengage from a fire fight while keeping the enemy heads down.

For that reason, we have to consider the game and the RL differences.

In RL, we have 2 mode of Recon that could be used. The Stealth one and the armed one.

In the stealth one, the movements are most likely made at night and without the Strykers. At least these are left at a point where they can be safely guarded by a team and the HQ. From there a team is infiltrating the area to be reconnoitred. It should maintain a constant link with the HQ. That way it can pass on information and ask for air, artillery or mortars support. In case of trouble it should fall back to a spot , located somewhere on the way out (that exfiltration way is different than the way in) where the other team might wait and provide a fire base to slow down the enemy on the heels of the retreating team.

In the armed one, the recon is made mounted in the Strykers over long distance and using them as a solid fire base while one team is probing grounds around in a cluster pattern. The HQ stay with the Strykers and the 2nd team move with the 1st one keeping constant mutual support and or overwatch between them.The MGS is or are staying a bit farther away keeping an overwatch on the Strykers and if possible on the teams. If trouble comes they can be deployed close to the Strykers, or these can fall back toward them. The 2 teams must fall back at the double behind a curtain of smoke shells and mortars rounds, toward a predetermined spot, from which they can hold back the enemy and direct (or ask for to the HQ) air, artillery or mortars fire..

In that scenario, I am using the 2 scouts teams with the javelins (to dispose of MG’s nests being seen) mounted on the Strykers. Javelins would not be carried on a RL infiltration, since weight is the first enemy before the enemy itself (Anyway, Air being called, would take care of tracks and or tanks being most likely lased for laser bombs drops).

I move the Strykers and the MGS (which are kept at a wide pace behind) toward and on the flanks of the supposed enemy concentration. I never have them attack head on. I try to find spots where the tracks will be partly hull down and to establish a solid fire base. The teams and even the HQ disembark. The 2 teams move to another spot providing mutual support. The HQ stay with the tracks. Once the teams have sufficient intelligence of what is forward and around, I have the Strykers rejoin them if it is safe.

To summarize, I am using the recon teams :

1st To draw a more or less clear picture of the enemy in the area.

2nd To call all available mortars and or MGS being able to give support

3rd To provide a solid fire base for an Infantry platoon mounted on Strykers, which will disembark the closest to the enemy concentration under suppressive fire.

Just a remark, rather important. The Strykers and the BTR are rather prone to get damaged and or destroyed by RPG’s and recoilless gun’s. The bradley’s and their inter active casing fare better and their quick 20 mm link belt fed gun do marvel. The Strykers in that scenario have 50 cal HMG, they don’t get the same result to say the less.

If I can use the brad’s to attack a village I rather do it.

About the Marder being immobilized, well it is rare to have all units fit to a 100 %. Now days the tracks need a day to day close look due to their mechanical and electronic gears which have become more and more complex

There is nothing comparable between an M3 half track (WWII vintage) and a Stryker, besides the mutual use of the 50 cal HMG. That one has the easiest mechanic parts to be care. For the rest there is nothing comparable. You could almost say, that the M3 could be taken care off with a screw driver and that you have to call an electronic and or a mechanical engineer for the Stryker.

I hope to have answered to your 4 questions

[Erwin]

Snake: I really appreciate you taking the time to answer and clarify how to use Recon units. It is completely understood that your comments refer to their use in the CMSF game.

So, to clarify, what I think you are saying is that:

"In the game, and your scenario in particular, it is better to keep the recon teams within support distance of each other.

If they can find a safe route that appears not covered by enemy, only then to bring their supporting AFV's closer to them preferably in hull-down positions but able to cover the further advance of the recon teams."

You are also saying that: "It is not advisable to separate the teams and have them move with only stealth as their protection (unless it's at night or dense cover?) cos the game limitations will make them vulnerable to ambush - the enemy will see them at the same time the teams see the enemy."

In addition: "In the game, one would load the Recon teams with Javelins (unrealistic in RL due to weight) and use the recon units as "stand off" AT units when needed."

Does that imply that you may as well load em with other AT assets like regular inf usually possess and just use the recon teams as weak inf in many situations?

Does the above accurately reflect your suggestions?

Am still a bit curious as to the use to the HQ unit. Is he more useful IN his vehicle, or on the ground?

For the HQ to be useful for bringing down arty/air, that seems to imply that he has to also stay close to the recon teams - or at least have good view of where they are going or may encounter resistance.

But, that could mean that he moves forward in his AFV when the recon teams have reconnoitered a safe route.

Thanks again for your very useful guidance re recon in the CMSF game.

[snake_eye]

To Erwin,

Your advices recap is right. Rightfully, they are intended mostly for the CMSF game and in particular to that scenario.

About the AT assets :

The Javelins are heavy for a small team. The AT4 are lighter but fare better at a range under 250 meters. Their uses in open ground necessitate being more or less exposed till the threat is at close range. However, the Javelins are permitting a long shot while being safely away. More they are able to destroy a tank at the first shot, which is most of the time not the case with the AT4. Javelins are perfect against ground and hardened targets, like houses, bunkers and troops in trenches. They have been used that way in Irak in particular in the Fallujah 2 battles.

Depending of what the teams are going to do the Javelins and or the AT4’s are an evident choice.

If the teams have to move on foot a long distance, the AT 4 is better, but not necessary, since the teams should primarily avoid contact. They must find the enemies emplacements, not fight them.

About the HQ:

The HQ should to my sense, in that game (but also in RL), stay always with the tracks or close to them. They can that way maintain a watch for the tracks which remain safely farther back than the front scouting elements. It can from there, overwatch the teams during their forward move and provide a Fire base if necessary.

The tracks will move forward to rejoin the teams when they have found a suitable emplacement. The team’s tracks move first and when in position the HQ track will come along. Then, the HQ dismount. When the perimeter is set, the teams scout forward on foot, providing each over mutual support and overwatch as needed. The HQ remaining at the new fire base follows their move and gives support, with all available assets when necessary

About the recon tactics:

It is difficult to get into them in details, since they depend of the countries, the forces doing them (Infantry, Mech Infantry, armor, airmobile…….) and mostly from the type of grounds on which they are done.

There are broadly 2 types of Recon. The one against unconventional and the one against conventional armies (I won’t get into it, since it is a huge program involving many different tactics).

Against unconventional :

Stealth is the key. Insert, see, report and exfiltrate without being seen.

If you are about to scout through an open and more or less bare ground, if enemies are known to be around, you are not going to do it on foot and or mounted on a track in full day. You don’t want to be zeroed in with a recoilless gun, MG and or mortars. You are going in at night to a predetermine ground feature on foot, on a quad (engine muffled, torque modified…) inserted with a parachute wing (which permits a long distance drop and glide path) or with an helicopter (with rotor blades and engines muffled –special ops operative).

However each of these has advantages and the contrary. If the ground features do not allow some cover and if the area is more or less populated, the helicopter is not going to be used, then the chute either since it might not be easy to find accurately the LZ, specially, if no one is there with a beacon. An insertion on foot and in some case with quads is mostly chosen

In areas with ground features having orchards, lush vegetation, streams and or rivers with swamps areas near them with villages scattered around.

Depending of the area stability, day patrolling either on foot and or mounted on tracks can be done, mainly on the roads and or tracks (if supporting tracks). Night recon can be done on foot to reconnoitre possible ambush sites and have an eye on them.

Night insertion by helicopter on peaks can be done for team of scout that will provide an overwatch security of the movements being done on the road use in the morning by a convoy.

The use of scouts to patrol on foot, seek the enemies and engage it, is not what they are meant for.

Many peoples think that a Green beret, a ranger and or a seal team is inserted to seek and destroy before being exfiltrated. That is right if it is on a known objective clearly defined and that should be treated accordingly to the intelligence that has been gathered. That is, what was done for the Geromino action that took place some days ago. Before that assault, undercover actions were made at different levels, with different means and not a thing was done to alert anyone.

To scout is primarily to seek the whereabouts of the enemies, to evaluate its forces, to reconnoitre the ground features of the grounds that could be a real asset when known for a near and or future use of tracks, tanks and or Infantry deployments in that area.

The scout gathered intelligence on the ground is invaluable; No satellite intelligence will be able to verify on the ground if what is seen on pictures is what is found on the ground. Electronic intelligence however gives a certain view of the environment that could be verified by a team infiltrating the area. More, they might discover units that were not suspected to be in, due to their maintained cell phones and or radio silence.

These are some of the real uses of Recon deployed against unconventional threat. They can be of some help while playing with CMSF, but they can not be simulated as written earlier. A game like ARMA II and its military version can reproduce stealth Recon in a human against human environment. Some limitations have to be accepted. Some gamers even fared better against military teams in very closely watched evaluation scenario. On the ground I would not have given much success to the gamers.

For me it does not matter, how much you know of how the recon teams should be employed in the game, since it does not fit in it the way it does in real life.

Luckily, that is not the same with over forces use. There are still some limitations, but we are closer to reality than before. That is, close to real situation awareness.

To end it I would say that SITUATION AWARENESS is what Recon is all about

Cheers

[Erwin]

Your comments are so useful.

It's valuable to have some one has both done this stuff, knows what he's talking about, and most importantly is willing to share the knowledge in a generous manner.

(Some of the other milpro folks here act a bit like arrogant pr&^ks when it comes to helping out with useful info. As that is SO different from the RL military guys I have met and interviewed "who have been there and done that" that I have wondered if some of the milpro folks posting here are REMF's acting like they are big-time operators.)

So thank you again, Snake. I have to travel again, but as soon as I get back I will be playing Helluva Road opening!

PS: I can recommend the Canadian campaign Khabour Trail.

[snake_eye]

Thanks for all Erwin and specially for the information about the Khabour trail Canadian campaign, I shall give it a try.

[Erwin]

I think you would also like JOKER 3 and maybe ROAD TO DINAS (a Red vs Red campaign).

BTW: What's the difference between Attack At El Derjine V1 and V2?

Also, is ROAD OPENING V1 (Marines) still with the original set-ups etc? I have looked at V2, but wasn't sure if you had updated the Marines version.

[snake_eye]

I think you would also like JOKER 3 and maybe ROAD TO DINAS (a Red vs Red campaign).

BTW: What's the difference between Attack At El Derjine V1 and V2?

Also, is ROAD OPENING V1 (Marines) still with the original set-ups etc? I have looked at V2, but wasn't sure if you had updated the Marines version.

I played only once JOKER 3 and enjoyed it a lot. Got in trouble, trying to ex filtrate with the Bradleys the squads stuck deep into the houses, once I got there. However everything else went the way I thought it should. Pretty amazing scenario and astonishing map

I played quite a few times ROAD to DINAS. I have written before what I thought of it, but the designer clearly did not understood what I meant and took it as an offence and rather badly , judging by his harsh remarks. You can praise someone and yet point out what problem there is, if that is a benefit for the game. When, I don’t like a scenario or if it is badly done, I keep it for me.

When, you made earlier, Erwin, some wise remarks about a HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V1, I looked at them closely and worked to see, how it could be improved. V2 is the result. A good one, I hope. You will tell me.

To end with it, in a campaign, if you are systematically unable to go to the next battle, because the point’s parameters are preventing you to do so, that is not fun. Why the designer is he taking so much of its time in effort to finally prevent people to discover the good work he has done ?.

The maps are well done, the scenarios are goods but the parameters are the problems. They still are to a lesser point in the Canadian campaign (I have played it up to the 5th or 6th, till the parameters kicked me out). I only hope that they will be good in the Montebourg battle of Normandy campaign.

I know that the parameters are not easy to set and I had myself problems with them.

That is exactly what happened in a COUNTER ATTACK at EL DERJINE V1. The Reds had a certain tendency to surrender, when the reinforcement where coming. That was due to the casualties’ threshold. It has been corrected in V2. You can almost play it to the end, with still a lot of Reds around and finally win.V1 was a 2 hours scenario, V2 is raised up to 3 hours and more.

The Red’s attacks spears have been modified and their axis closely watched during the numerous testing with BLACKMORIA. The attack intensity is better than the previous one. You don’t have time to sip on your favourite drink. Some assets have been added, to had more realism to the attacks. The initial sets up zones were not sufficient and obliged the player to stay on the front line or close to it. Now, with the added numerous sets up zones, he can move its units wherever he wants and out of harm, if that is its intent.

A HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V1 is unchanged at the time being, still played with Marines. The set up could be changed to the ones found in V2, when I get some time available.

A HELLUVA ROAD OPENING V2, as written above, is played with Marines and Nato and has its sets up zones enlarged and new ones. Zil’s truck, Mtvr’s for the ANA as suited, 2 X Marder’s and one Fenneck. The Fenneck to provide AT launcher to one of the team carried in the Marder’s (a way to counter the default of V 1.31 absence of launcher in the Marders, till the correcting patch comes)

[Erwin]

You play fast if you're already on scenario 5 of Canadian campaign. I am still about 50 mins to go in 4th scenario and entering the towns, only 2 friendly KIA and 2 WIA so far. One Hamster (or whatever those big armed trucks are called) immobilized, but I didn't see why since all seems functional. Maybe the ground.)

Very frustrated that I cannot access the extra ammo and esp the rockets in the recon COYOTE's.

[snake_eye]

You play fast if you're already on scenario 5 of Canadian campaign. I am still about 50 mins to go in 4th scenario and entering the towns, only 2 friendly KIA and 2 WIA so far. One Hamster (or whatever those big armed trucks are called) immobilized, but I didn't see why since all seems functional. Maybe the ground.)

Very frustrated that I cannot access the extra ammo and esp the rockets in the recon COYOTE's.

No Erwin, I don't play that fast, I had just forgotten that the Khabour trail was part of the Canadian campaign. I played when I got Nato. I don't have with me the external HD where I save usually shots and results from the battles I play. But, I think I went up to the 5th or 6th battle of the campaign.

I liked the one (within the first ones to be played) with the only bridge that could be crossed to get to the objectives. I think that it is the one with IED on the bridge. But as I wrote it, the objectives points and mostly the casualty threshold parameters were disappointing. You could finish a battle having reach the objectives, mopped up the all place and be beaten only because that damn threshold was saying so. It also happened in a battle, just because 3 Reds WIA, were still there! To this day, I have not understood how the game parameters got to that result.

I think that the Canadian forces used in the campaign have less fire power than what we usually find with US armored infantry and USMC units. Don't you think ?

[Erwin]

Same thing with the Brits, but I find that to be part of the challenge. I agree that it's not fun to ALWAYS have a very tough time. I like campaigns that give the player an "enjoyable/easier" scenario or two along the way. Variety is the key.

The one bridge to cross covered by IED's I already played so I think that is an earlier scenario in the Canadian campaign?? I may be getting confused. The scenarios do all start to feel the same/similar after a while.

Which btw is a major reason I appreciate designers like you who take the time to create really unique and interesting scenarios with many decisions/options re how to proceed. Cookie-cuttter is death.

(Please enjoy my ass-kissing while it lasts. I am usually known for the opposite, heh.)

PS: You'll probably hate the idea... but as a matter of principle I am asking scenario designers wherever I post, that specialized units, esp Recon, Snipers, maybe Engineers as well, be given higher experience levels (to Crack) to simulate their higher training. I know CMSF isn't designed to sim the recon aspect of war per RL, but we still need to do it in the CMSF game scenarios, and these teams should be able to spot and either run and hide or get the first shots off b4 they are spotted.

For those who hate this concept, fine, 99% of the current scenarios don't give these teams any enhancement - so be happy. But, I don't believe I am alone in envisaging making specialized teams actually special in this way as a means to increase the entertainment value of this wonderful game.

[snake_eye]

PS: You'll probably hate the idea... but as a matter of principle I am asking scenario designers wherever I post, that specialized units, esp Recon, Snipers, maybe Engineers as well, be given higher experience levels (to Crack) to simulate their higher training. I know CMSF isn't designed to sim the recon aspect of war per RL, but we still need to do it in the CMSF game scenarios, and these teams should be able to spot and either run and hide or get the first shots off b4 they are spotted.

For those who hate this concept, fine, 99% of the current scenarios don't give these teams any enhancement - so be happy. But, I don't believe I am alone in envisaging making specialized teams actually special in this way as a means to increase the entertainment value of this wonderful game.

Erwin, Thanks for the compliment and if they don't last, I shall try to be up the needed standard. After all if a scenario is taking in account what the designer might not have seen at first, it benefits to the scenario, the players and the designer.

Your remark about the specialized units is right. If they are specialized, they should normally be to a better standard than normal units, thus to set them as crack is not abnormal at all.

Now the question is, will CMSF make that difference felt in the game in such a way that it makes a certain difference?

That I am not sure, since, what we would need is at first, for snipers and or recon a certain ability in stealth moves and in seeing without being seen. The Engineers should be able to detect IEDs, minefields(they don’t do it in CMSF) and blow walls (they do it), besides that they act like infantry.

[Erwin]

My assumption has been that an Elite® unit will see a lesser experienced unit first, enabling it to take appropriate action first.

As a confirmed WEGO player this is really important as I don't have the luxury of "making a unit elite" through my own (hopefully) "elite level" reactions.

And yes, I am primarily talking about Sniper and Recon units.

Engineers are a gray area as they can't do their RL stuff in the game. But, they do have much better training so... maybe should be better for assaulting positions??

The fact that unless you cleverly position their BLAST waypoint so they stay outside of whatever they just breached, they will rush in thru the breach first. It's annoying to see them get mowed down when they do that. You'd think they would have better performance if that is their SOP.