Help!

[Dogma One]

Right now, I am playing ATF Demo and am still struggling to clear/secure Ojbective Texas (Death Valley Task Force: Attack)

At least, I was able to eliminated two enemy "recon" elements inside between PL Chuck and PL Arnold. Other three enemy "recon" elments near by PL Chuck.

Two BTRs w/ATGM in South Flank near by 2-5 Cav Boundary Line (inside between Pl Steve and PL Chuck)

T-80s/Artillery units decimated all M1s and BFV/CFCs

[Pat Proctor]

Here are a few tips:

1. Do not attack in the middle. Try to "hug" one of your boundaries so that you hit either the anti-tank or the recon platoon on a flank.
2. Use artillery to soften up these forward positions before you run into them.
3. Use artillery SMOKE to approach the main defensive belt and cut a breach in the obstacles.
4. When you have a breach through the obstacles, and begin your assault through, use artillery and direct fire suppression on the enemy that can see your breach point.
5. While you are stopped and breaching, try to hide the vehicles not involved in the breach in concealed terrain, so they don't take indirect fire.
6. Try to haul a$$ through the breach, and get behind the enemy on the objective. Then "roll up" the defense from the rear and sides, rather than running intor the teeth of it.

I hope this helps. This is my favorite scenario in all of the games, but it still beats me occasionally.

[JamesBailey]

Right now, I am playing ATF Demo and am still struggling to clear/secure Ojbective Texas (Death Valley Task Force: Attack)


Rommel would have a hard time securing TEXAS, so don't feel bad and keep practicing!

Its a very tough scenario - tough terrain, tough mission (complete a breach against prep. positions), tough enemy and you don't have overwhelming firepower to do it (esp. no Warthogs :bite: ).

A few pointers from me:

(1) kill all the enemy recon ASAP
(2) move any unit observed by his recon ASAP - otherwise you will get a mouthful of DPICM in 2-3 minutes.
(3) get all your recon deep and don't sell their lives easily - they are your most valuable units
(4) once you ID enemy BP (battle position), have your arty ready and kill him w/ indirect fire - make sure your first shot KIA's him, as you might not get another shot at him (he might move and time is precious)
(5) keep out of the 4 km range of the enemy's ATGM as long as possible (easier said then done, I know).
(6) as Pat said, assault thru one of the enemy's flanks. with that said, I have never successfully assaulted thru the Inf Strong Point on the southern flank.

Good luck and Charlie Mike!

[Pat Proctor]

James brings up a good point I forgot...

If you read the OPORD, you will see that you are allowed to forward position your scouts up to the AT platoon and recon platoon (I don't remember the phase line; look at "Coordinating Instructions" in the OPORD). Pre-position them before you start time. This simulates a night of infiltrating them into position (which would be a little boring to game).

[Dogma One]

Thanks, man. I will try your way.

I had been play ATF Demo over and over in order to perfecting my battlefield skill/learn all mistakes I made from last battle(s). It isn't easy to clear/secure Objective Texas. They did create an excellent defensive line, I salute them (AI REDFOR)

I am considering to get a full verision game ATF. : )

[WMurray]

I forgot to mention that I found an old AAR in the attic from a certain CPT Proctor, some guy working at NTC, as ... now what was it? An O/C? Oh yeh...and this is actually an AAR for Death Valley Attack where he takes the role of a BN FSO (battalion fire support officer) but still quite instructive.

Maybe there's some connection with the MAJ Proctor at CGSC...nah...couldn't be...probably just a coincidence...anyway, if anyone's interested let me know and I'll post it.

:whist:

[Pat Proctor]

I am considering to get a full verision game ATF. : )

Why get your a$$ kicked by 2 scenarios when you can get your a$$ kicked by 14 :)

Seriously, I am glad you are enjoying the demo!

[JamesBailey]

I forgot to mention that I found an old AAR in the attic from a certain CPT Proctor... anyway, if anyone's interested let me know and I'll post it.


WMurray - there is some interest. If its not too much trouble for you, I would enjoy reading that AAR and it would probably help the rookie ATF players like myself. Thanks!

[John Osborne]

WMurray - there is some interest. If its not too much trouble for you, I would enjoy reading that AAR and it would probably help the rookie ATF players like myself. Thanks!

James, and everybody else. Here is those AArs you asked about.

Colorado Wadi Attack (http://www.v-ctc.com/v-ctc/wadi_aar.htm)

Death Valley Defense (http://www.v-ctc.com/v-ctc/dvd_aar.htm)

Hidden Valley Attack (http://www.v-ctc.com/v-ctc/hidden_aar.htm)

JohnO

[WMurray]

WMurray - there is some interest. If its not too much trouble for you, I would enjoy reading that AAR and it would probably help the rookie ATF players like myself. Thanks!

James,

Sure. We can't let those dirty, rotten Krasnovians just sneak back into Death Valley, make turtle soup of those NTC desert tortoises and get away with it!

Here it is. What I find particularly impressive about it is that (then) CPT Proctor is doing three different things at once with his guns (M109A6s): (1) using them for suppression, (2) using them to generate a smoke screen, and (3) using them to take out enemy units ranging the point of penetration (POP), all at once, and timing the handoff between the batteries to keep the smoke screen going!

Death Valley Attack (http://www.v-ctc.com/v-ctc/aar1.htm)

Good Luck!

Bill

P.S. I haven't had much chance to update my V-CTC site (http://www.v-ctc.com), except to add photos of the battalion and brigade insignia artwork on the rocks at NTC, but will add the paper I presented at the 2nd Annual AI and IDE conference (Artificial Intelligence and Interactive Digital Entertainment conference) and the V-CTC project final report by this weekend, along with the link to the MS&T (Military Simulation and Training) article for issue 2 of this year for those who didn't get it before, so check the site this weekend for those links if you're interested. All these involve use of ATF and Pat was a coauthor of the last article.

[JamesBailey]

Bill and Underdog-

Thanks for those AAR links. They are excellent learning tools and very well done. Outstanding stuff.

Oh, and I stand by my claim that Field Marshall Rommel would have trouble securing TEXAS. Its a butt-kicking scenario for anyone!

[Pat Proctor]

Here it is. What I find particularly impressive about it is that (then) CPT Proctor is doing three different things at once with his guns (M109A6s): (1) using them for suppression, (2) using them to generate a smoke screen, and (3) using them to take out enemy units ranging the point of penetration (POP), all at once, and timing the handoff between the batteries to keep the smoke screen going!

Believe me. It's alot easier to do on a computer than it is to do in real life!

[kbluck]

Oh, and I stand by my claim that Field Marshall Rommel would have trouble securing TEXAS. Its a butt-kicking scenario for anyone!

To be fair, the stock database that comes with ATF makes some core assumptions that makes it well nigh impossible to secure a victory without appalling losses. Under the default database, the result of the excellent AAR by MAJ Proctor truly is about the best that can be hoped for, without crossing the line into "cheating" or enjoying phenomenal good luck.

The fundamental problem is that infantry can't be used aggressively, because according to the stock database any hit from any weapon at any range will kill any infantry unit almost instantly. It is impossible for any infantry unit to close with the enemy, relegating rifle infantry to a feeble support role at best. The only things rifle infantry is good for in stock ATF is hiding somewhere spotting for artillery. Or, I suppose, soaking up ATGMs in the hope that the enemy will run out of missiles before rolling out your tanks.

I made an alternate database which changes those assumptions, which seems to have become the basis for all the follow-on titles in the ATF line. I reimported that db into the DVA scenario. Here is the AAR. (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=6855)

You'll note that the outcome was considerably different. That's not because I am a better tactician than either MAJ Proctor or Rommel, but instead reflects the value of infantry to the combined-arms team. Able to maneuver and close with the enemy, infantry completely transformed the outcome of the battle, totally unhinging the enemy defense, opening up their flanks, avoiding their kill sacks, and allowing them to be defeated piecemeal.

--- Kevin

[Bil H]

Interesting Kevin.. can you explain what you changed in the data base to make them more survivable? I assume you reduced the pK numbers for all weapons, but how much? One or two examples of before and after would be great... keep in mind that I only own TSATC...

I played a little of TFW Demo Twin Sisters scenario today and got frustrated at how easily infantry squads (friendly and enemy alike) were destroyed (especially seeing that casualties in the real fight were very light, for both sides really)...

...I sure hope something can be done for infantry in the AATF to make them lose power gradually, rather than an all or nothing thing as it is now. A simple step system, or better yet, a loss of squad members 1 or 2 at a time would suffice with a kill result. Especially seeing as all weapons and squad members are accounted for in this game.

Bil

[CPangracs]

Interesting Kevin.. can you explain what you changed in the data base to make them more survivable? I assume you reduced the pK numbers for all weapons, but how much? One or two examples of before and after would be great... keep in mind that I only own TSATC...

I played a little of TFW Demo Twin Sisters scenario today and got frustrated at how easily infantry squads (friendly and enemy alike) were destroyed (especially seeing that casualties in the real fight were very light, for both sides really)...

...I sure hope something can be done for infantry in the AATF to make them lose power gradually, rather than an all or nothing thing as it is now. A simple step system, or better yet, a loss of squad members 1 or 2 at a time would suffice with a kill result. Especially seeing as all weapons and squad members are accounted for in this game.

Bil

Yes, it would be interesting to know why this is, as I believe the database for TFW has many of the same values for dismounts as the altered database that Kevin made...

The original ATF game was based on values used at the NTC. After 7 rotations there (3 as OPFOR Augmentee dismounted force), I can tell you that infantry really doesn't do much goodin the box. Many times I spent walking mile after mile throughout the night to get into position to attack or defend, only to be summarily wiped out by either artillery or CAS.

So, what does this all mean? Well, I can tell you from intimate and continued (3 years) experience with this engine that, unless you skew training levels and other modifiers in a particular direction, you will never be able to mimic historical events, and each combat event is STILL different. However, to actually provide a challenging game, it is important to "even" some things out and then playtest the heck out of it.

I have played every scenario ever made for this series, (and some only a few in the world have yet to play! ;) ), most of them many times, and I've been able to beat most of them soundly and with few losses using the proper tactics and techniques FOR the ATF engine. ATF and its subsequent games are as close as any real-time tactical commercial game I've found at this level, and I use, test, investigate, and am involved with many of them in my line of work. This might be one of the reasons Lockheed Martin is using Raging Tiger to test the next generation of Close Air Support platforms, and it may be the reason Pat has had such success with the engine and why it will continue to impress.

The fact that everything is modifiable by the user makes it even better. I think that, the more you play the game and the toys included, the more you will appreciate its subtleties, its nuances, and the pure fun and frustration that comes with such a piece of software.

Curt

[Bil H]

Hey Curt..maybe it was just my inept leadership skills ;)

[JamesBailey]

You'll note that the outcome was considerably different. That's not because I am a better tactician than either MAJ Proctor or Rommel, but instead reflects the value of infantry to the combined-arms team. Able to maneuver and close with the enemy, infantry completely transformed the outcome of the battle, totally unhinging the enemy defense, opening up their flanks, avoiding their kill sacks, and allowing them to be defeated piecemeal.

--- Kevin

KILO BRAVO-
nice AAR - liked the well discussed tactical considerations.

I also had question on the commander's intent for timing of this mission, as its unclear from the OPORDER. Perhaps its on purpose to give tactician flexibility or perhaps its a clerical error and there is a really important time to own TEXAS by... certainly, its one of the battlefield prep difficulties that go into making this a killer tough mission.

Also, good work finding a passable axis up the Inf strong point. I got my two armored coys to the base of it largely intact after blasting it up and down with HE directed by the scouts. I got one armored coy up and into these nice overwatch positions into TEXAS, only to get the other coy stick, and unable to get across. The isolated coy was roughed up pretty badly before I pulled both coys back, believing that I couldn't take TEXAS without destroying my future combat effectiveness. Think Rommel would have agreed with me there - fight to win by accomplishing objective while maintaining combat effectiveness.

Regarding infantry role. I agree they are too fragile. Useful missions included Counter-recon against OPs, spotting for arty, covering flanks, and prepared BP (especially with Javelin). It does appear that infantry's role is vastly expanding in AATF to reflect better the nuts and bolts of close arms combat (ATF ain't great model for the grenade range and in fight).

[CPangracs]

Regarding infantry role. I agree they are too fragile. Useful missions included Counter-recon against OPs, spotting for arty, covering flanks, and prepared BP (especially with Javelin). It does appear that infantry's role is vastly expanding in AATF to reflect better the nuts and bolts of close arms combat (ATF ain't great model for the grenade range and in fight).

You are correct - hence the name "Armored Task Force"!;)

Ask any tanker what infantry are good for, and they'll tell you "Traction in the mud and snow!":laugh: Only recently are we seeing how powerful infantry is on the asymmetrical and unconventional battlefield, and how vulnerable armor can be in confined spaces. We (the US Army) always tried to stay OUT of urban areas for this very reason, and only now are we learning how best to use it in that environment.

I think most of you will be a very pleased with things in AATF, but there will always be a few who will tear it apart and claim that it's just not perfect enough. Believe me, ProSIM does its very best to take fan comments and incorporate them into the games they make, but some things are more feasible to do than others. infantry modeling done at the "squad" level (not individual) is tough. I've been toying with the idea of creating individual infantrymen and a scenario using individuals instead of groups of weapons in each "vehicle". The issue is the level of detail. It would work with a platoon or two, and if I ever get to it, I'll let you know how it works out.

If anyone ever wants to have a true impact on a game, it's important to get on beta-testing lists and participate in a productive manner on forums dedicated to the games you like. I am currently in 6 different game betas, and I'm glad my opinions are being heard in a constructive environment - some of them are even incorporated into final release.

If anyone wants to participate in ProSIM betas, you should get over to Shrapnel (http://www.shrapnelgames.com), join the forums, and get on their mailing list for their blogs and such - you'll get first crack at betas!

[JamesBailey]

Ask any tanker what infantry are good for, and they'll tell you "Traction in the mud and snow!":laugh: Only recently are we seeing how powerful infantry is on the asymmetrical and unconventional battlefield, and how vulnerable armor can be in confined spaces. We (the US Army) always tried to stay OUT of urban areas for this very reason, and only now are we learning how best to use it in that environment.


Hehehe... 10 years ago, and at NTC that's true; but as you point out, warfighting and the enemy is changing. Now where is my tricked out rifle? :rifle:


Believe me, ProSIM does its very best to take fan comments and incorporate them into the games they make, but some things are more feasible to do than others.

I have been very impressed with the level of support and active discussion from ProSim. You guys get major GOs for this task!


If anyone ever wants to have a true impact on a game, it's important to get on beta-testing lists and participate in a productive manner on forums dedicated to the games you like. I am currently in 6 different game betas, and I'm glad my opinions are being heard in a constructive environment - some of them are even incorporated into final release.


I had no idea you were looking for help. I will check it out!

[kbluck]

Interesting Kevin.. can you explain what you changed in the data base to make them more survivable? I assume you reduced the pK numbers for all weapons, but how much? One or two examples of before and after would be great... keep in mind that I only own TSATC...

The two major changes were a vast reduction in the pK for small arms, and the prohibition of using ATGMs against infantry.

There are some old threads that document in considerable detail how I arrived at the infantry assumptions I encoded in kbDataModern. Rather than rehash, I'll just link. Interestingly, the DVA scenario played a prominent part.

Death Valley Attack Frustration (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2977)
Statistics of Destruction (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3030)

I also considerably increased the vulnerability of tanks from the sides and rear. Here's why:

SAWE/MILES II and pKs (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3541)

I played a little of TFW Demo Twin Sisters scenario today and got frustrated at how easily infantry squads (friendly and enemy alike) were destroyed (especially seeing that casualties in the real fight were very light, for both sides really)...

Although the small arms lethality is much reduced, infantry is by no means safe. I do agree that small arms is *still* too lethal even with my reductions, but you can't go lower than 1% in the db. Sustained fire will still kill infantry fairly quickly; the main difference is that now they at least have a bit of time to react when they come under fire.

Many times I spent walking mile after mile throughout the night to get into position to attack or defend, only to be summarily wiped out by either artillery or CAS.

A common experience. I mostly left artillery vs. infantry alone, and actually increased the lethality of mortars vs. infantry. Historically way more infantry is killed by indirect than direct fire. You'll notice in the AAR that I kept the infantry moving and well spread out; artillery was my main fear.

Save the Mortars (http://www.strategyzoneonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=3428)

--- Kevin

[Bil H]

You are correct - hence the name "Armored Task Force"!;)

On the other hand it is called a "Task Force" because armor can't survive alone. Combined arms is what is being simulated here, not pure armor (except in most of the TSATC scenarios that I have seen)

I've been toying with the idea of creating individual infantrymen and a scenario using individuals instead of groups of weapons in each "vehicle". The issue is the level of detail. It would work with a platoon or two, and if I ever get to it, I'll let you know how it works out.

The big problem with this idea is that the game is not designed that way.. nor is the map scale small enough to take advantage of that level of detail as you said. I don't think that is what I'm asking for at all.. just give me infantry that can take punishment and still keep going.

Bil

[CPangracs]

On the other hand it is called a "Task Force" because armor can't survive alone. Combined arms is what is being simulated here, not pure armor (except in most of the TSATC scenarios that I have seen)



The big problem with this idea is that the game is not designed that way.. nor is the map scale small enough to take advantage of that level of detail as you said. I don't think that is what I'm asking for at all.. just give me infantry that can take punishment and still keep going.

Bil

Actually, I think the engine CAN handle small-scale skirmishes at the individual level, especially with the current and future processors and graphics cards. My system, which isn't "cutting edge", but it's no slouch, runs the largest TSATC scenarios like a lightning!

There may even be an ability to zoom-in even further in the future, you never know!;)

[eds]

In AATF will ATGWs be being used on infantry as they were in TFW?

[Bil H]

Hmm, you've got me thinking now Curt. I think instead of individual soldiers I can see a system where a squad is broken down into 2 or 3 component units... fire teams and then whatever support they have. That would do what I want. When I get the time I'll have to play with that.

Zooming in further would be nice... I wouldn't mind a little more detail at the most zoomed in level, perhaps even 3D for that zoom level would be nice ;)

[JamesBailey]

Kilo Bravo presents some solid mathematics in his Stats of Destruction. I guess the great thing about ATF is the mod-ability of the engine, allowing users to make key modeling 'tweeks' here and there as they like. Of course than you have an Apples to Oranges comparision danger for Sitreps and AARs, potentially making us look like Rommel. In any event, looking forward to AATF infantry capabilities a lot (and potentially helping out; I applied as a Beta-tester).

CURT - Love the SFC Smith avatar.

[CPangracs]

In AATF will ATGWs be being used on infantry as they were in TFW?

No, ATGMs won't be used against dismounts, but RPGs and other similar weapons can be used.

In addition, no air defence missiles are enabled against anything but air targets.

[CPangracs]

Kilo Bravo presents some solid mathematics in his Stats of Destruction. I guess the great thing about ATF is the mod-ability of the engine, allowing users to make key modeling 'tweeks' here and there as they like. Of course than you have an Apples to Oranges comparision danger for Sitreps and AARs, potentially making us like Rommel. In any event, looking forward to AATF infantry capabilities a lot (and potentially helping out; I applied as a Beta-tester).

CURT - Love the SFC Smith avatar.

Very nice! I think your attitude and practical experience may be a huge boon for the beta team (something is coming VERY soon!:halo: ). I hope you are selected.

Curt

PS - I figured our country needs to be reminded of our true heroes!

[JamesBailey]

PS - I figured our country needs to be reminded of our true heroes!

Amen man, Amen! There are some very bad people in this world whose darkness is held back thanks to the very good people like Paul Smith!

[CPangracs]

Amen man, Amen! There are some very bad people in this world whose darkness is held back thanks to the very good people like Paul Smith!

And, of course, BG Simpson! ;)

[Bil H]

I think instead of individual soldiers I can see a system where a squad is broken down into 2 or 3 component units...

Hmmm.... seems I would need another command level to be able to do this and retain the Company controls. :rolleyes:

[CPangracs]

Hmmm.... seems I would need another command level to be able to do this and retain the Company controls. :rolleyes:

Not sure why you have the rolling eyes, seems a bit confrontational for this forum.

You are actually incorrect - the teams can essentially be part of the platoon, you just wouldn't have traditional "squads". For example, a dismounted rifle platoon has quite a bit more than most people think, and it can be broken down like this:

Traditional Platoon in ATF (bolded entity is designated as "commander"):

- Platoon HQ: Plt Ldr, Plt Sgt, RATELO, Plt FO and a medic

- Dismounted Rifle Squad (x3): Sqd Ldr, Tm Ldr x2, Rifleman x2, Grenadier x2, Anti-Armor Spc x1, Designated Marksman x1

- Weapons Squad: Sqd Ldr, M240 x2, Asst Gnr x2, Ammo x2

so, we have a "5-squad" platoon within the ATF Hierarchy.

Non-Traditional Platoon in ATF (bolded entity is designated as "commander", Italics is successive in commander rank):

- Plt Ldr Section: Plt Ldr, RATELO
- Plt Sgt Section: Plt Sgt, FO, Medic
- Fire Tm1 x 3: Sqd Ldr, Tm Ldr, Rifleman, Grenadier, Designated Marksman
- Fire Tm2 x3: Tm Ldr, Rifleman, Grenadier, AntiArmor
- Wpns 1: Sqd Ldr, M240, Asst. Gunner, Ammo Bearer
- Wpns 2: M240, Asst. Gunner, Ammo Bearer

We now have TEN entities instead of the previous 5, with just as much firepower and more flexibility to manuever on the battlefield in the game, as long as you don't mind maneuvering more entities. You can STILL give missions and such, just with more flexibility when you decide to intervene.

If I remember corectly, this is similar to how I created the hierarchies in Raging Tiger - been awhile...

In addition, you can create "soldiers" instead of "weapons" with the primary weapon for that soldier.

The creativity you can use with the ATF database is astounding. I'm also confident that adding a "team" level to the hierarchy would be fairly straightforward coding, but has repercussions when assigning missions.

[JamesBailey]

We now have TEN entities instead of the previous 5, with just as much firepower and more flexibility to manuever on the battlefield in the game, as long as you don't mind maneuvering more entities. You can STILL give missions and such, just with more flexibility when you decide to intervene.


Wouldn't this - at some point - make commanding a battalion in ATF/AATF game very time consuming? A 3 plt coy. would have 30 of these little 'teams', and a 3 coy bn 90 of these little guys running around. That's something difficult to effectively command. I like the fact that ATF can quickly and smoothly simulate battalion level operations, and leave the small squad and team work to the LTs and NCOs. This is one of ATF's strongest points and I would hate to see that change in AATF :)

[Bil H]

I agree with James, that isn't what I'm looking for at all.. I don't expect any of this in AATF James. I am just looking at how, using the current technology in the game, to make infantry more survivable in a custom data base.

Curt, stop being so sensitive :nuts: if I wanted to be confrontational I would have used this: :bandit: of course, perhaps I should have used this: :argh: sorry man.

:horse:

[Pat Proctor]

AATF is similar in "granularity" to TFW (as far as the number of people/weapons per icon on the map). Platoon and Company echelons are modeled much as in ATF. The difference between TFW and AATF (besides the VASTLY smoother interface and graphics) is pace. AATF is just a FASTER game, because you are working with air assault forces exclusively, moving rapidly to violently seize objectives. TFW was much more of a leg infantry fight (as was the war ;) ).

[CPangracs]

Wouldn't this - at some point - make commanding a battalion in ATF/AATF game very time consuming? A 3 plt coy. would have 30 of these little 'teams', and a 3 coy bn 90 of these little guys running around. That's something difficult to effectively command. I like the fact that ATF can quickly and smoothly simulate battalion level operations, and leave the small squad and team work to the LTs and NCOs. This is one of ATF's strongest points and I would hate to see that change in AATF :)

Actually. James, it doesn't change things at all unless you WANT to manipulate everything - there is no reason you can't continue to give platoons and companies missions as before - none at all. In fact, this IS letting the LTs and NCOs run things, just at a lower level.

The only thing it may affect is carier loads that are based on numbers, but that can be easily fixed in the database.

Curt

[eds]

I must appologise for my total ignorance, but could someone tell me what SFC Paul Smith did.

[JamesBailey]

could someone tell me what SFC Paul Smith did.

It would be an honor :D

Here is a good summary of the man:

http://www.medalofhonor.com/IraqiWar.htm

(look at all those awards - trust me, they don't just hand those out)

and more details on the battle here:

http://www.sptimes.com/2004/webspecials04/medalofhonor/

[CPangracs]

I agree with James, that isn't what I'm looking for at all.. I don't expect any of this in AATF James. I am just looking at how, using the current technology in the game, to make infantry more survivable in a custom data base.

Curt, stop being so sensitive :nuts: if I wanted to be confrontational I would have used this: :bandit: of course, perhaps I should have used this: :argh: sorry man.

:horse:

No worries - I just thought it an odd smiley to use and it seemed out of place - believe me, I've done my share of inappropriate smiley insertion! ;)

[eds]

Again please excuse my ignorance as i'm not from an active military background and i'm aware that many of you out there either are in the services or have been, but now in this age most armies appear to have moved from sqds with one GPMG to a squad of 2 teams with 2SAWs/ISWs, which gives more flexability through manouvrability at the lowest level. As Curt states it's only there if you want to use it, surely it's better to have the option and not use it than not to have it at all.

[eds]

Thanks James enlightening me.

[eds]

Curt in AATF will their be different Plt structures ie Scenarios set in Vietnam having the TRADITIONAL ATF Plts (similar to TFW) and say scenarios in Afganistan having the NON TRADITIONAL Plts with teams rather than Sqds

[CPangracs]

Curt in AATF will their be different Plt structures ie Scenarios set in Vietnam having the TRADITIONAL ATF Plts (similar to TFW) and say scenarios in Afganistan having the NON TRADITIONAL Plts with teams rather than Sqds

Yes - the structure will mirror the unit structures for each time period.