Jump to content

How to use the GMSS and MMSS in the Canadian Coyote Recce vehicles?


ricnunes
 Share

Recommended Posts

I bought Combat Mission Shock Force almost a couple of years ago and more recently I bought the NATO module and now I decided to start the Canadian Forces campaign. But I have the following question:

In real life the Canadian Coyote vehicles Recce vehicles carry either a MMSS (Mast Mounted Surveillance System) or a GMSS (Ground Mounted Surveillance System) which allows the vehicle to detect enemy forces at much longer ranges than "more conventional" sensors and in fact the NATO module manual refers that the Coyote carry either on of those two kind of sensors but unfortunally I don't know (and I can't find in the manual) how to use those systems in the Coyote, so my question is: How can I use these systems with the Coyote?

BTW, I'm currently in the 2nd mission of the Canadian campaign.

Thanks in advance for replies...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the manual mentions it, they might be probably factored in automatically when calculating the spotting chances of the Vehicle.

Or it might be as Erwin says: not modeled

It is supposed to be the same with the M707 Scout HMMWV of the US army. They are meant to be good spotters.

But as I explained in a recent post, if there is one thing remember in CMSF when commanding western forces is to stay FAR AWAY from the enemy and engage from afar.

I just recently finished the full Canadian Campaign in elite wego with casualties of only 65men and 1 vehicle lost applying this single basic advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 3 weeks later...

Britain has an artillery support vehicle with a non-functioning mast too. From what I understand *unbuttoned* spotters in these vehicles will gain some added functionality but really maps are rarely large enough to make a difference. A soldier on one knee is just about as likely to spot the enemy from 600m as an unbuttoned M707. The difference is subtle and I've never been much good with subtle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Britain has an artillery support vehicle with a non-functioning mast too. From what I understand *unbuttoned* spotters in these vehicles will gain some added functionality but really maps are rarely large enough to make a difference. A soldier on one knee is just about as likely to spot the enemy from 600m as an unbuttoned M707. The difference is subtle and I've never been much good with subtle.

The optics on the M707 not only helps with distance but also in low light, check previous post.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 7 months later...

I found the lack of modelling of masts and such like quite a let down. It's all well and good referring to all the technical paraphernalia these vehicles have in the manuals but if it doesn't count for jack in the game, as has been said, they're about as much use as two guys in a jeep. I hope this kind of thing is improved in CMSF2. If all the modern wizardry is no more than an unmodelled game manual entry it's a bit pointless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is not the abstraction - which in games we have to accept since they are games and not DoD simulations.

But, you are correct... the manuals pretend to be packed full of info, but 90% of it is data that does not help play the game and in instances such as this are plain misleading thus leading to frustration. I think it's cos some milpro/grogs really want to delude themselves that they are playing "the real thing" and that being good at this game somehow "means" something in the real world, and that its not just a really good fun, entertainment product.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, quite happy with that. How it's abstracted I don't mind. But, a mast equipped vehicle should be a) better at spotting (in some cases), and B) more importantly, quite a lot harder to kill while doing so. I'm no programmer but one would think that should be doable. It's when the vehicle doesn't even proximate the performance of it's RL counterpart that it's a bit of a let down. Better leave it out altogether if it cant be modelled IMHO.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, quite happy with that. How it's abstracted I don't mind. But, a mast equipped vehicle should be a) better at spotting (in some cases), and B) more importantly, quite a lot harder to kill while doing so. I'm no programmer but one would think that should be doable. It's when the vehicle doesn't even proximate the performance of it's RL counterpart that it's a bit of a let down. Better leave it out altogether if it cant be modelled IMHO.

The vehicle IS equipped with other special optics that is correctly modelled, so its inclusion is justified in my opinion. From what information I can find about the mast, is that its advantages usually fall out of the scope of the game. It is still just a radar you know :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think in game terms its more important what the FO vehicles don't have.

The Bradley FO vehicle lacks a TOW missile pod, M707 lacked any defense at all until a late patch finally coded in the unbuttoned infantry using his personal weapon. Ack, I'm not near the game, the Brit FO IFV just has a turret mg and dummy Rarden, or am I misremembering? But my point is the in-game effect of these specialized vehicles is a net penalty. Which isn't entirely inaccurate. Even the mighty Abrams in Iraq were having problems with their fancy high tech opitical devices getting wrecked all the time, greatly diminishing their utility.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmmm. Not sure. It's spotting capabilities seem no better than anything else, including a scout team dismounted from a jeep.

It won't spot better under "normal" game circumstances. However if you play night scenarios or scenarios in any other that degrade normal vision you'll see an increased capability.

Check this link:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1217524&postcount=28

The other advantage is that when you call in artillery with this sucker, it will be quick and precise and you'll need less spotting rounds to drop lots of tnt :).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that knowledge of RL capabilties is a hindrance in this instance. I can't recall how many "mast-equipped" ATGM and FO vehicles etc I lost cos I had no idea that the safety (and added visibility over obstructions) of the mast wasn't modeled. An example of the schizophrenic nature of CM2.

Of course one learns to adapt and still enjoy the GAME. But, it gets real tired fast listening to wonks going on and on about how "realistic" a sim it is.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The issue is that knowledge of RL capabilties is a hindrance in this instance. I can't recall how many "mast-equipped" ATGM and FO vehicles etc I lost cos I had no idea that the safety (and added visibility over obstructions) of the mast wasn't modeled. An example of the schizophrenic nature of CM2.

Of course one learns to adapt and still enjoy the GAME. But, it gets real tired fast listening to wonks going on and on about how "realistic" a sim it is.

It is realistic in the sense that if you employ real world tactics you will get the right results, but to each his own. Personally I don't see how putting in the capabilities of a piece of equipment that has only marginal advantage at the distances (or even the max distance for that matter) of a typical scenario would make this a better sim/game. If somehow that spoils the game for you well there's not much anyone can do about that. And to the point, there is only 1 mast equipped vehicle in the game and that mast does NOT allow you to see pas obstructions not in real life and not in the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recall using ATGM vehicles (probably a Red vs Red scenario) and trying to just have the mast or missiles exposed, but those units died so fast because, as I afterwards realized that the game does not seem to allow them a hull-down advantage. Either that or it's virtually impossible to get them into hull-down positions since it's hard to tell in CM2.

I remember saving and trying over and over again to get those missile launchers to be deadly (2K-3K meter range) and they just got picked off. It may have had something to do with the phenomenon that moving vehicles seem to have a spotting advantage over stationary in cover (or is that only in CMBN/CMFI?). When a unit that should be deadly is that useless/inadequately modeled, there is probably no point even having it in the game. It gives rise to expectations which turn into frustration.

The lack of modeling of masts or roof equipment doesn't spoil the game for me. But, I did read the manual (which was not helpful) and I wondered why did I have to waste so much time discovering flaws like this when I could have been enjoying my leisure time on the next scenario.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the key thing is patience and luck. The ATGM vehicles are not great in offense, you want them sitting in the back just far enough until the target cursor indicates hull-down or partial hull-down, and leave them there. It helps if they are in communications with other units doing spotting.

The problem is, that not all scenarios that have ATGM vehicles are suitable for their optimal use. But try the Gung Ho campaign (in the repository), the second mission gives you great opportunity to practice being patient :). And be sure to relocate them once the sun is up ;).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, good solid suggestions. However, what I am saying is that getting them to be in an appropriate "hull-down" position is often very tough.

You can test LOS from a waypoint, but when the vehicle gets there it often doesn't have the LOS you were expecting, or inadvertently no longer hull-down etc.

I can see it working in RT when you can make instant adjustments. But, WEGO is often deadly to weapons systems that require exact/perfect movement and placement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...