Apocal

The context in which that's the only way formations are balanced against each other in any way in CMx2. You can say all points-buy systems are bad but headcount is worse, since it matters literally nowhere in the CMx2. But fine, putting points aside, Stryker Cav still wouldn't be disproportionately powerful compared to any other formation of the same size (not meaning headcount) in the game. Any other formation meant for brawling outguns it, some of them grossly so. The only way you can make them hit above their weight is by assigning other assets. American mech cav does better but still usually loses against a competently-handled and adaptive (i.e. not the AI in most cases) Russian player with a heavy (tank or mech) combat formation. Certainly the Russian and Ukrainian recon formations aren't hitting above their weight, now that I look at them. They aren't the only thing that matters to me, but they are a measure with some degree of objectivity. You or anyone else can look on your screen and see the same/similar numbers. You can also crack open any scenario and give an undernourished cav troop second helpings of attack helicopters and 155mm artillery. That doesn't require my permission or approval. I'm just saying that, in the context of CMx2 battles -- the subject of this thread -- there are better formations for winning brawls and the real advantages of a cav/recon unit aren't really reflected in the relatively constrained battles we get.

I don't measure or compare formations' firepower divided across headcount. I measure it against other formations of equivalent on the org chart -- platoons against platoons, companies against companies, etc. If the game had headcount limits anywhere, then driving firepower per-man higher would be important, but there aren't any limits like that in CMx2. But there is a limit in context of CMx2 -- points -- so I also measure effective firepower against points/rarity costs. A Stryker cav troop costs ~4200 pts, a Stryker rifle platoon costs ~4600, options depending in both cases. The difference between a mech rifle company and a mech cav troop is ~500-600, similar to the previous, but at least in that case I'm getting more TOWs out of the deal. Also, I'm not sure if there is an update (I use the Steam version of CMBS) or I just picked the wrong units, but my Stryker cav scout platoons have zero M240s. I was under the impression they did as well but checking in-game they have nothing but rifles. It isn't a huge deal but definitely does them no favors in the firepower department. Finally, "as Cavalry they'll typically have far more CAS and artillery support per-man." Not in CMx2. You either pay for it or you don't get it. That's why I mentioned default units; anyone can add (or fail to add) any number of attachments to bulk up the cav/recon force. In CMx2, it is a good idea to do that. It doesn't make cav/recon inherently more suitable. Any unit type can take attached units, without restrictions.

CMBN, the Normandy one. There are also a few really solid campaigns for CMSF by @Field Marshal Blücher featuring companies in relatively small scale fights. +1

Usually better spotting capability of one form or another. Sometimes better comms gear that helps with calling in fire missions. Also sometimes they are positioned in the organizational chart to give them an advantage with information sharing or calls for fire. Yes, they can. They aren't necessarily ideal for it but most of them work fine. However so does almost everything else, so it really isn't a big point in their favor. Not really. Larger, more powerful enemy formations can just mallet them or shove them aside at CMx2 scale, unless you get lucky. Strykers are especially anemic; the Bradley-based ones are better but still can get bullied by tanks. Pray your opponent is too dumb to use his artillery effectively. If they are, you can score a few times with the Javelins and hopefully intimidate the rest of the armor into shying away, which should allow you to use the Strykers and MGs to hold back and/or kill off his dismounts. But if they know what they are doing with combined arms, you're pretty much just ****ed. A Russian BTG vs. Stryker cav platoon goes exactly one way if your opponent has enough brain cells for a collision. Artillery holds down Javelins and almost nothing else in the (default) Stryker cav force can hurt a T-90. Unless the stars align in your favor, their artillery flat misses everything and the player behind the keyboard is blind, it is going to be a hard loss, unless you shoot and immediately retreat off the map. A lot of the ability to be sneaky and pull off ambushes without getting plastered by fires doesn't really work because the REDFOR knows, with absolute certainty, that your cav/recon force is somewhere on that particular map. Some maps are big enough to help mitigate against but with some terrain analysis and a bit of CMx2 experience, most decent players can figure out where the dangerous zones are and either preemptively bombard them, block them off with speculative area fire or have a TRP placed near there. It is just a (necessary) limitation of the game. They can do better in op level campaigns, where you can treat them as a kind of utility unit that doesn't instantly pop to any enemy whatsoever. All those security, screening, reconnaissance missions they handle just fine. It is really just loading into a game of CMx2 against something like a reinforced enemy company or full BTG where you think, "Damn, I really wish I had a heavy battalion for this..." Stryker Cav definitely does not have disproportionate firepower for its size, especially in CMx2. I don't think the Ukrainian or Russian ones do either. The kinda exception is the US armored cav, but even then it can get blown out in CMx2 by T90s of an equivalent formation.

Even then, the level of micromanagement CMx2 allows (indeed, even requires in many scenarios) is something no real world commander can attempt, short of corralling men within shouting and pointing distance. That makes a lot of a professional's training and experience void because in real battles, they give relatively few, but (in CMx2 terms) incredibly broad orders to their subordinates, who in turn take their understanding of those orders (not necessarily what was intended!) and use that to generate further orders below. That goes on down the chain until a mission for a mech battalion to secure a main supply route against infiltration becomes a company team ordered to clear and occupy a town astride the route, which in turn goes to Stryker platoon to take a particular block, a machine squad to setup in and fortify a certain building and finally the individual gun team leader to hold down a long angle in order to protect the rest of the battalion, directing his gunner when to employ grazing fire. All this is done semi-automatically in the real deal, each step capable of managing itself and not needing to be handheld*. Even in the most top-down, micromanaged forces, staffs don't tend to nitpick employment of every individual vehicle and weapon team -- especially not in real time. The bigger struggle of battle command is elsewhere, and doesn't necessarily make for an interesting game: "How do I write this OPORD in a way that everyone will understand my plan while still being succinct?" All that said, CMx2 can certainly be used to develop good insights and wargame out plans to see where some of the failures might happen in any given plan. It is good for reinforcing fundamentals and getting a better appreciate for the variables that might affect a given matchup. I just don't think that skill in playing CMx2 would be indicative of skill at commanding troops in combat. *Yeah, yeah, I know a bunch of other BTDTs are going to have some laughs and, yeah, I'm right there with you but when echelons removed from reality are reaching down from the heavens and into your ear, we all agree that isn't supposed to happen much.

I have no problem believing that guys who play computer wargames regularly do better at CM than military professionals. But I think the implication in that article is reaching a bit. There is no end to the dumb **** I do while playing CM -- suicide scouting, shooting machine guns over and around my own troops, driving armor over my dismounts in a heavy undergrowth forest, etc. -- that I'd never even consider doing IRL for good reasons. Playing the game as a game, and not as an actual exercise or operation, certainly opens up the possibilities for clever tactics but I'm skeptical that it correlates to doing better in the real deal.

Thanks!

I've been out of the game for awhile but I'm interested in getting back into it. I saw that some CMx2 titles were on Steam but now I'm wondering if/when that includes CMRT and its DLC? Any word?

Graviteam Tactics: Mius Front, in case you weren't joking.

I play RT, generally.

It was never given the V-hull that upgraded Strykers were. And from what I understand, that tied into the issue of reducing their unit counts in SBCTs. It was less an on-high decision than simple acknowledgement Stryker units had begun to cannibalize their MGS to keep a portion running.

I'm still here. There were a few others, but yeah, they mostly shift to other games about six or nine months after a release, as they play through all the content. Probably not much bigger, because the complicated (and occasionally frustrating) issues with a more complex spotting routine lead to a lot of player frustrations, but especially in WeGo when I can't simply back down a vehicle that hasn't spotted something it should see quite clearly (e.g. a Tiger emerging perpendicular to the tank from a woodline, less than 100m away with TC unbuttoned). The fine map-grid wouldn't be an advantage either, since the TacAI is pretty bad of taking advantage of 8x8 right now, so most players (myself included) break down squads into teams to prevent the game from doing silly things with the troops and limit the damage from units "wiggling" out of cover/concealment for no apparent reason.

That has been happening occasionally for years. It is rare that I notice it because I don't often look at my own troops close up, but sometimes in the post-battle review I notice guys with two long arms. I don't know if it is a bug or unintended behavior from the bazooka/PF code or what and I can't figure out how to reliably cause it, but it does happen. Not really a big deal either way.

CMBN has been out for over half a decade. I don't know how you got a full count of CMBN, but running a ctrl+f search for "btt" on the CMFB scenario page shows a total count of 38. And even that is inflated by a pair of dealership scenarios and some that came stock with CMFB itself. The same for CMRT reveals 118. I think it is fair to say that the rate of user made scenario production is pretty well outstripped by the active playerbase's ability to run through them all. I'm not knocking anyone for it, just saying: if veterans were playing scenarios rather than QBs, I'm pretty sure we'd see more activity on scenario-making sites. Not just uploads/downloads either, but also comments, suggestions, etc.

If that was the case, you'd expect to see more user-made single-player scenarios and activity around scenario hosting sites, particularly for the newer releases. But as it stands, CMFB has very relatively few user made scenarios, considering how long it has been released and the popularity of its subject matter.