Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/18/2020 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Fire superiority is indeed important.. its the crucial element in micro-tactics success actually... however not taking advantage of cover is asking for trouble and will make closing with the enemy a little tough. You often don't have fire superiority in most cases and will need to create micro-situations where you can create them in order to attrit the enemy's combat power. Maneuver and Firepower - can't bring your firepower to bear if you can't maneuver... can't maneuver if you are outclassed by fire. Using cover to get where you need to in order to ensure local fire superiority is paramount and is the basis of all small arms tactics from the Russo-Japanese War to the present. Ignore the lessons learned, like the major powers did in the opening stages of the First World War, and it will cost you dearly. Being smart about maneuver and protecting your units with cover so you can gain local fire superiority is not only good-tactics, it is common sense. All in my opinion of course... nothing personal, take it for what its worth. Bil
  2. 3 points

    Bug and stuff thread

    The four action spot slide. It works for HMGs. Not sure about other crew served weapons. For HMGs: If you have a deployed team, and give them a short movement order (4AS or less) without un-toggling "Deploy Weapon", the weapon becomes "instantly" packed up and only takes 2-3 seconds to redeploy once at the new location. This is simulating the crew shifting their piece without dismounting it from the tripod etc.
  3. 3 points
    I feel your pain. Most open areas in scenarios are carefully set-up kill zones. Here's some advice, from my experience: a. Use smoke. Pop it, or call it in. Smoke will obstruct your ambushers' line of sight and buy you time to advance. b. Use recon teams. It's easy to spot a task force, harder to spot a couple of guys in the grass. Use them as a litmus test for the enemy's firing arcs. Try to cover them with overwatching units (heavy weapons, IFVs, etc.). In addition, have them leap frog -- give one team some time to observe and the other to advance a short distance. c. Recon by fire! Turn the board around and pretend to be your opponent -- where would you place your sneaky crew served weapons? Using area fire from your heavy hitters will cause OPFOR to return fire. Once they do, they are very easy to spot. This worked great for me in the Canadian campaign, in conjunction with recon teams. The last piece of advice is to avoid obvious routes to your objective. Try to take the back streets -- they're surprisingly safer.
  4. 3 points
    I saw the first words of the title of your thread and mistook it for my own initially! In addition to what others suggested above, I would recommend trying to find keyhole positions. In case you are not familiar here is one of @Bil Hardenberger’s excellent blog posts about that. https://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/06/battle-technique-keyhole-firing-position.html The idea here is that you as much as possible try to position units so that they can only be fired on from a narrow angle that required the shooter to expose themselves in order to do so. Your field of view may be narrow, but if it is well sited, it may reach some considerable distance across the map, which enemy must cross and have limited resources to engage you with.
  5. 3 points
    Yup.....Just do 'em ten at a time and keep on saving.
  6. 3 points

    I like neither parapets nor foxmounds.

    Fortifications need a fix. They're annoying to place to the point of widespread un-use in QBs, and the objects themselves and how troops interact with them could be improved. I can't imagine the poor scenario designers right now working on The Seelow Heights. Can you imagine trying to place this in the editor? In QB?!
  7. 3 points
    Excellent. Since this is an advice thread - a couple of things occur from the above: Those AFVs look too close together, and far too close to the town. That's not necessarily a risk, but it's not making the most efficient use of the asset - they could control the same space, and cover each other (you definitely want a pair of them covering the same area), but control far more space with them, and keep them firmly out of bazooka range. That kind of positional advantage (the goal of manoeuvre warfare, essentially) is pretty important - you can sometimes turn a fair fight into an unfair one, just by moving things around.
  8. 3 points

    Good image hoster?

    Another vote for imgur, just don't get lost looking at all the memes.
  9. 2 points

    Ammo for Tanks?

    I'm vaguely familiar with that concept yes ...
  10. 2 points

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    What a bad ass.
  11. 2 points
    +1 @Aquila-SWG Interesting & amazing stuff. You are one talented dude. Inside the well deck of the USS Wasp. Amphibious group exiting the well deck and heading for the beach. Wish I would have had the below billboards for Coup. The billboards are very useful in urban terrain. Keep up the good work my friend.
  12. 2 points

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    Two grenades pass in mid flight during a grenade chucking contest.
  13. 1 point
    You can be on the defense, be outgunned by an attacker by the ratios you mention and still gain a local fire superiority over a portion of the attacker's force. The overall combat power comparisons do not matter when it comes to the use of cover and maneuver. It is all situational, what is the size of the map? How much combat power can you keep in reserve? Are spoiling attacks against a part of the attacking force possible? Can you cover every route into the objective(s)? Etc. Tactics cannot be boiled down to one or two bullets, ie. Cover bad, Firepower good. Maybe I'm just being obtuse, but I fail to understand your point.. is it that because the one covered route might be covered by fire that you are suggesting an attacker should take the open route instead? Me? I would recon the covered route, clear it, and use it to close with the enemy force if possible using long range fire to suppress possible defenders on the other end of that route.. but there is not always a good solution to every situation... sometimes there is no good way to advance, due to map design or map size, available combat power, etc. In those cases I would call a cease fire, discuss the issues and then move on to something that won't be an exercise in frustration. But that's me... you guys play in whatever way makes you happy.. if having overwhelming combat power in every scenario is your cup of tea so that its easy, go for it. Just try not to disregard real world tactics in this game, the fact that they work so well in CM is what makes this the best battle simulator on the market in my opinion. And play against a human opponent.. failing to use covered approaches will get your men killed very quickly against a human opponent even if he/she's a beginner... the AI is much more forgiving. Bil
  14. 1 point

    RT Unofficial Screenshot Thread

    Splendid screenshots! 😀
  15. 1 point
    I recall an anecdote that was told I-forget-where some years ago. A couple campaign-hardened veteran GIs in WWII France are laying low against an embankment shielded from enemy fire. A new '90 day wonder' lieutenant runs up and exhorts them to get the *bleep* up and move, then he's immediately cut down by enemy fire right before their eyes. Its the job of the officer class to get soldiers to move forward over open ground under fire. its the job of the enlisted class to hug the terrain as much as possible and survive 'til another day.
  16. 1 point

    How do you advance over open terrain?

    Good suggestions. Most players need to learn to use recon more, somebody has to be sacrificed for the good of the whole. You always need to find the enemy location first, before risking moving any units of value. find / pin / maneuver to killing positions / eliminate. (This is the basics no matter the terrain.) Yskonyn, it sounds like you have the tendency to want to move to contact in force, this is not a tactic that plays out well in these battles. (That is a tactic in real world situations where you have a massive advantage - that is never the case in most cm battles)
  17. 1 point

    Ammo for Tanks?

    No they come out and deliver what they're going to give you. IDK how much that would breakdown in a major conflict.
  18. 1 point
    Well, then, I do stand corrected. If I'm not punished for not winning that first one I'll definitely go on. I was a tad hasty in my earlier comments I think. I was mostly just tweaked about having used up my weekend playing time on it.
  19. 1 point

    Recent presentation about Nozh ERA

    I'm also one of the person who is also curious about the theory behind the performance shown in the presentation. It is totally unrelated opinion but I must tell, these days I don't trust "some" materials from sturgeonshouse, tanknet, or warthunder forum. Problem is, a lot of people there do not share the name of document neither properly cite and use reference. It is very easy to use photoshop to "fix" any screenshots, and too many people just upload mysterious screenshot from "mysterious PDF data they somehow get", citing no reference, and "search yourself". Well, I don't buy any of such claims with mysterious PDF screenshot without clear reference comment. If somehow it is crosschecked by another reference, then I trust. You also need to be careful about that. Well, at least the person of that article put some efforts for referencing, so I respect that. Plus, there are some good arguments are back and forth in that posting about Nizh, it was good to read. Thank you for sharing that thread.
  20. 1 point

    German Panzer Grenadier doctrine

    So as mentioned I'm suspicious of the translation. I think it's also important to take it for what it is - a highly staged and idealised training film. I think it's worth comparing this to the US films of a similar nature, which are abstract and "biased", but still contain some useful information, at least in the broad strokes. So for this, I'd assume that the action depicted is not an impossibility. It might be on the wrong scale (although I'm not sure about that), or overly optimistic, that kind of thing, but presumably the make-up of forces isn't stupid, which means it's useful to try to understand why they're being used in that way.
  21. 1 point

    A Better Fortification System

    I agree with your points about how it takes a long time and many clicks to move fortifications around, but I am personally not happy with the way the fortifications actually work in the game, once they are placed. It's been discussed in detail before in many other threads, so I don't want to derail this one. Just wanted to chip in and say the whole fortification aspect of the game could do with an upgrade.
  22. 1 point

    The Year Ahead Bone Post

    Yeah I've been trying to find the screenshot I thought I saw a Kuebelwagen with a roof and can't now. Probably a hallucination. I actually have had Combat Mission dreams by the way.
  23. 1 point
    See below, I do not know how to delete this.
  24. 1 point
    Great thread everyone - I have nothing to add - lots of good advice already. I am glad I am not your opponent in this one.
  25. 1 point
    Never knew that! So just make a map called (for instance) [trash] in your z-folder, add it in the editor as a mod tag and voila?
  26. 1 point
    Everyone's been saying so i'll reiterate. Your firepower > his, raze the place. Ideally all your infantry should have to do is occupy smoking craters.
  27. 1 point
    I don't know about an order of magnitude; that is a lot. They are difficult at times. There's a scenario in TF Thunder's campaign (5?) where you are hunting manpads, the briefing says to be quick and remember your armour is impenetrable to small arms, but if you roll your Strykers in within 500yds they'll get cooked, and fast. You must screen. Screening however is difficult and very time consuming. On urban maps where every single building can hide an AT team it's a tactical nightmare. As for RPG-29/AT-14 effectiveness, the internet is full of videos from Syria and Turkey showing tanks getting opened up like they're paper. In fact it's videos from Syria that made me think BF had got it right. Cities are no places to be rolling vehicles around, especially when every man-jack has a bloody RPG under his bed.
  28. 1 point
    Yeah, I always try to get the enemy in a crossfire whenever possible. They *seem* to bug out/displace more easily that way. Flanking fire, and all that.
  29. 1 point
    A good measure against infantry (and the AI) is to place them under fire from opposite directions. If the AI judges itself to be 'surrounded' and kind'a freaks.
  30. 1 point

    The Year Ahead Bone Post

    Special request: Can the new CMRT Fire and Rubble module include the already modelled axis vehicles from CMFI's earlier July 1943 timeframe? Just sweep them in as purchasable single vehicles, set the rarity as you deem appropriate. No TOE concerns. I am thinking of the Panzer III's (Ausf M and N) but there might be a few others. Krupp Protze also. Please
  31. 1 point
    The village looks awfully small for a whole company of infantry. They must be densely packed like sardines in which case arty should be rather effective. Too bad you don't have 150mm. Are you sure he is not also set up in the woods behind the field and in or behind the tree line halfway between the village and the north west objective?
  32. 1 point
    Agreed. This does not seem to be a particularly hard village to assault. But, it's hard to tell unless one has the 3D map to explore re LOS.
  33. 1 point
    I guess if there was still a German hiding somewhere in the objective area it would not be ticked, right?
  34. 1 point
    This is very true. But if he does that, then he basically just skips one of the phases of the defence by letting the enemy close in unopposed. Once you have a foothold in the village, you then switch to house clearing tactics. There are some situations where you just can't really do anything to dislodge defenders - for example if they hide in big building complexes where there's a central building surrounded by other buildings. The only real way to clear those is to overwhelm them - surround the pocket of resistance and then rush in as many teams at the same time as you can, from as many directions as possible. Brute force and high casualties. Ideally, flamethrowers should be just the right tool for those situations, but unfortunately they don't work like that in this game - they are unable to target into a building through another one. Area firing at the building between you and the target only makes them fire into the floor.
  35. 1 point
    An amateur's view... The entire purpose of the Stryker was strategic mobility, not tactical mobility. The Stryker was developed to give infantry something more than a truck, which has limited tactical usefulness, and marching. And to also be able to be deployed by lighter air transport. Then once on the ground, be faster and more mobile than a truck or foot. The main strategic component, beyond mobility, was to be information. The ability to integrate tactical and some strategic information for use in removing FOW for tactical commanders was supposed to be the secret sauce. And in the game and in real life, people are trying to use Strykers like faster Bradleys. In game, its the fault of players and scenario designers. And of course, at design time, budgets were a factor as well. In Steel Beasts, there are a number of Stryker-like vehicles. There are even Stryker Dragoon-like vehicles, like DF-30s and BTR-82As. In current modern armies, there is a wave of wheeled APC/IFVs that have come through. SB shows that these vehicles do well in low-intensity combat and where you need to move long distances reliably and quickly. But as soon as you hit serious enemy forces, you need to drop infantry and move back to cover. Those wheeled APCs/IFVs get chewed up very quickly. They are limited in how they can be successfully deployed for combat. One thing SB also shows is that sending unsupported Stryker-like units across open fields is not good if limiting casualties is your goal. You better make sure you recon real well. Again, just an amateur's view from playing CM and SB.
  36. 1 point
    You have to edit the mds skeleton files of the infantry with a software like Notepad++ and replace all mention of Mk2 with Mk3, it's a bit more involved but that's the basic you should start looking into. When you open the file you will see a lot of strange symbols, bot just press CTRL+F and search for the exact denomination of the MK2 file that's probably inside the uniforms folder and replace it with the exact name of the MK3 helmet. Again, it might be more complex, but this is the basic. Hope it helps.
  37. 1 point

    German Panzer Grenadier doctrine

    + 1. Interesting. I just watched it again for the third time between the BFC forums and the Few Good Men site . According to rule number 25 it sounds like grenadiers did, sometimes, fight from inside the vehicle. At least that's what the bulletin advised. I think number 30 is basically saying monitor your f#$%ing radio! Some things never change along with drivers falling asleep while at a brief stop #11 & #12.
  38. 1 point


    As I mentioned earlier, 1917 is not really about the experience of WW1 as other same era historical movies have been. 1917 is a good story shot in a beautiful and stylish manner by Roger Deakins (full disclosure - he was a tutor of mine back in the dark ages when I was trying to make it in movies) but it could have been set in many different eras and locations.
  39. 1 point
    From a battle I have been playing in pre-R2V CMFI for months with a friend. It’s a huge complicated battle, starting in pre-dawn light and with rain. An early engagement led to him losing quite a lot of armour and infantry around a wooded hilltop that I was using as a place to park my reserves. My estimate is it cost him three to four Shermans, three to five Bren carriers, and probably a platoon and a half of infantry. I lost a Panzer III and a Tiger and one squad. I still have armour, artillery and infantry there. That was an unfortunate place for him to attack... A kilometre or two away, my main defensive position, a large town, falls under an exceptionally heavy artillery bombardment. This explosion is the result of a large artillery shell striking the roof of a Brumbar, as well as the detonation of on-board ammo. Never seen this in game before and the image isn’t doing the spectacular effect justice. Nevertheless you can see the blast is substantially taller than the four and five story buildings nearby. This is the scene after the blast dissipated. The Jagdpanzer IV in the foreground is operational and undamaged from the blast, but the hapless Brumbar, which is kept secreted totally out of sight, is visible (below the smoke plume and flames) in the giant crater beyond it. The blast appears to have knocked down an adjacent building as well. Men inside nearby buildings are cowering.
  40. 1 point

    CMRT Module 1 Bones

    Funny how nobody ever seems to mention the Vistula-Oder offensive where the bulk of the German army was crushed and the Russians moved the front 482km west in less than a month. People instead like to talk about Danzig or Budapest or Vilnius or Serbian partisans or the islands off Estonia in the Baltic. The Eastern Front covers a LOT of real estate. BFC could do ten different battle packs just for events taking place between January and March.
  41. 1 point

    Winter mod for Afghanistan

    Have a safe tour of duty. And a big Thank You from my (Afghan) wife and me for keeping this unfortunate country a bit safer.
  42. 1 point
    Backs to the Wall.
  43. 1 point

    The Year Ahead Bone Post

    This, also in other titles, don't forget the Seep: & this come to mention it. T-34 minerollers would be very useful too.
  44. 1 point
    Nikishyne / Nikishino North-east of Donetsk and south-east of Debaltseve. map size : 2100 X 1900 m type : village Nikishyne saw a lot of fighting in 2015 during the battle for Debaltseve. I might post more in depth background info later. But at the end of the battle, it was basically a field of rubble with barely any house intact. Google Earth view : View from the South West : From the North East : Notes : Again the setup zones aren't that big. They're sufficient for a small force. I added objectives and setup zones for a meeting engagement so people could give the map a go and have some fun either as a pbem or a hotseat game. Historically the setup zones don't make a lot of sense though. I am aware of that. As far as I understand, the Ukrainian forces were reinforcing the village from the North and North-West and the separatists were coming from the South or South East. I picked these setup zones because I think they offer the most interesting tactical options and are more or less fair for both sides but they're not historical at all. Download link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/j5vfid5og72t0c7/cmbs map nikishyne.rar?dl=0
  45. 1 point
    Based on my readings of WWII memoirs and also a few Vietnam accounts, I fully agree with this. You can also watch very relevant videos of real combat footage of recent conflicts on youtube. The experience of modern fire combat often seems to be one of being exposed to a more or less abstract "volume of fire". Especially, but not exclusively in dense terrain (woods, jungle...). Troops couldn't always tell the direction from which it was coming nor identify/spot the source. Soldiers in WWII did also (and were sometimes encouraged to) fire without seeing the enemy. I suppose that being exposed to a high volume of fire - not neccessarily to any actual "suppression effect" (seeing the effect of bullets hitting close), just judging from the number of sounds/noise - would also be a psychological deterrent. Even if you're not acively pinned by the opponent's fire, you'd be less likely to risk any attack if the enemy "sounded" strong? I'm not sure whether fire fights in Combat Mission fully convince me in this regard. But it's generally hard to visualize the dynamics of modern fire combat and there is certainly a lot of variety. I sometimes get the impression that our pixel infantrymen might be a bit too brave when it comes to exposing themselves to enemy fire, and perhaps a bit too good when it comes to spotting the enemy when under fire. These two things are probably related, which is also why further experiments with modding animations might be interesting (forcing soldiers to stay prone more). Infantrymen in Combat Mission are very often able to fire on sight, with the result that casualties accumulate very fast and fire fights are decided comparatively quickly. For example, how often do you order a MG unit to move to an alternate fire position? In my experience, fire fights usually don't last long enough (by the time they would reach the new position, the engagement is already over) and 2) as soon as they move, they get shot. By contrast, if both sides were more affected by the "volume of fire", firing blindly to a greater degree, you'd expect casualties to accumulate slowlier, as a kind of "attrition". Soldiers would get hit by "anonymous" bullets more often, accidently, if you will. Partial cover would be more effective in this situation (it is of no great help when the enemy has spotted you...). I sometimes wonder why these situations don't occur in Combat Mission. As far as I know, Combat Mission does not take into account the more "abstract", indirect psychological factors. It does model the actual "suppression" effect, but not the psychological impact of a "high volume of fire". (Similarly, I think there is no tank shock/panic in Combat Mission). Depending on a unit's morale, the mere sound of intensive firing (within a certain distance/radius) could have an impact on morale and the will to advance. So this would be a more long-term "environmental" factor compared to the more extreme and direct "suppression" effect when the unit is targeted by accurate fire. I suppose that MGs are also part of the reason. They're quite handicapped by the fact that they can only area-target a single square per minute. They can only cover very small areas. Another point to think about would be the bonus for spotting units that are firing. And then of course the distance at which engagements take place also play a big role. Another rather weird thought: what about the lack of a "crouched movement"? Perhaps units would be able to advance closer to each other without getting spotted (staying below the height of the terrain type), so that both sides would be more likely to find themselves in a situation in which they can area fire at each other at closer distances? Also, when exposed to fire, a soldier's accuracy should drop drastically? Just very hypothetical brainstorming here, free of any considerations how it would affect gameplay as a whole ... So, for the further discussion, I would be interested in your opinions on these questions: 1) Should a perceived high volume of fire have a psychological effect, even if it's blind/inaccurate (not covered by the actual suppression mechanic)? 2) Does CM infantry engaged in fire combat spot too well? If so, why?
  46. 1 point

    New CMBS Scenario Korsun 2017

    http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-black-sea/cm-black-sea-add-ons/korsun-2017/ Posted a new scenario. V2.00 Game Engine 4 Huge map, H2H or RED vs AI only, before daybreak on the 6th June. RED attack to seize road and rail bridges over the River Ros, using the Forward Security Element and Advanced Guard of the 2nd Tamanskya Motor Rifle Divsion. Multi Company engagement. Map 3.5km x 3.5km.
  47. 1 point
    Actually, I tried them out. But in the end came to that conclusion. Elsewhere, it was said that the beauty of CM is the WEGO/Movie. I usually play with many things on. But often watch the movies with much turned off. As I have programmable game controls, I flip this with one key stroke. I think being able to see into trees is more important in RT games where you don't have the above luxury.
  48. 1 point
    What is that? Steve has posted before on this, they know and appreciate their customer base is a niche market. Though selling more product than they expect is always a good thing they also know roughly the budget they have to work with. <Economist hat on and a quick google search because it's my lunch break and I'm lazy> In economics, productivity refers to how much output can be produced with a given set of inputs. Productivity increases when more output is produced with the same amount of inputs or when the same amount of output is produced with less inputs. <Hat off> Never assume having more people on staff means you will produce more. Anyone who's worked for an organisation with 100+ workers and a dedicated Human Resources team knows this first hand.
  49. 1 point
    Growing larger is risky - not a guarantee. Just as many companies go bankrupt from getting larger as are successful. That plus I don't think the people running BF want to become business managers any more then they have to.
  50. 1 point
    Warts 'n' all

    Grenade Issue?

    I know it is a typo, but it is such a lovely thought. "H.Q. get me a florist squad right away!"
  • Create New...