ScoutPL

Hey fellas, ScoutPL here. Bil asked me to chime in. This fight is from awhile ago (over a year I guess), so my memory for the detail is rusty but I think I can give you an idea what I was thinking. Key to my plan was the open ground that existed between what I assumed was Bils front line (based on scenario intel and confirmed in the first few turns) and the actual objective. Essentially, his line of communication from his forward trace back to his main position could be interdicted with fires. So I set up a pretty strong Support By Fire position with my machine guns, Forward Observers, and one STUG. I dont remember precisely, but I think there was an infantry platoon there for security, as well. The main attack would consist of an end-run to my left, what Bil has labeled as AOA2. I felt it offered the most cover and concealment and would force Bil to fight in two directions at once. I had one ace in hand that made such an aggressive move possible: a few heavy trucks. After the STUGs and a dismounted platoon proofed the route, I was able to move most of my company by truck to the Attack Position in two quick trips. Then it became a slug fest as I pushed up the hill hedgerow by hedgerow.

Hello all, Experienced player looking for opponents, send me a message at toddj4143@gmail.com if interested. Thanks

It depends on what you are using your supporting weapons for. Mortars are best stationary with a "Fire Direction Center" unit nearby (usually one of the MTR platoon HQ units). The MTR platoon HQ or Weapons platoon HQ can then be used as an extra forward observer for your mtrs. MGs are often pushed forward to support your attack. Best used in a support by fire position where their longer range will keep them out of range of most small arms (if the terrain will allow). The weapons platoon HQ can be used to C2 those guns once the rifle platoons move forward, leaving the MGs behind. You can then move the MGs up when you need them and they stay under control of a HQ unit and gain those benefits.

I believe rocket attacks are the exception here. Its been awhile since I let this happen but I am fairly certain I was rocketed in my setup zone a number of times (the area of effect is so broad).

This is exactly what I do. Select Human pick forces and when the selection screen pops up select "Recommend Setup" (or whatever the verbage is). Then delete the arty/mtrs/rockets that are inevitably selected. (Dont let yourself preview the other units, the fire support assets are always at the bottom.) Russian fire support is so cheap it rarely makes a difference in the balance. Well, except the AI doesn't get to kill all of your infantry in the first 30 seconds. The only other option is to edit the QB maps and delete the Target Objectives that are telling the AI to fire those missions, then re-save under a different name and special select that map when creating your QB.

Dumb grunt prediction: Syria and Iraq will dissolve as nation states. Creating a new Sunni dominated state in the west and an Iran satellite, Shia state in the east. The Kurds will hold out for as long as they can, especially if they can maintain control of the northern oil fields. The brits drew the lines, the UN has worked to maintain them, but due to everyone's attention being on other things, or simply lack of real interest, the old lines will blur. The US cannot support Maliki, since he has strayed rather far from the mandate given him and his government. Without that support the sectarian violence will take hold. At this point I only see the West getting involved if there is a substantial threat to the worlds oil supply or an obvious attempt by either faction to finance/shelter terrorist extremists. I don't know that ISIS really fills that bill so far, I think they are mostly just trying to form a country all their own at this point.

I always thought the biggest reason was clearing houses. Without clearly delineated rooms, staircases, doorways, etc it would be impossible to accurately track every round in a structure. Clearing houses is abstracted, so friendly fire has to be as well.

Does anyone else believe the new tweaks to the game engine make this kind of combat ridiculously (ie unrealistically) difficult? I mean everyone's TTP (including my own at this point) seems to be throw a few bodies out front and when they get waxed you will have some idea where the enemy is. Or spray the ground to your front and hope you can suppress any enemy there so you can spot them before you walk on top of them. As a professional infantryman I have to say this is just WRONG. Restrictive terrain is the infantryman's friend (whether he be attacking or defending). There is comfort and confidence in having a tree or some micro terrain to hide behind, take cover behind etc. And nothing, absolutely nothing, will give your position away faster than firing your weapon, particularly within a few hundred meters. I can understand a squad gaining the upper hand in the first few seconds of a firefight but once they have fired their weapons they will no longer be hidden or "unspotted." From my observations so far it seems to be related directly to spotting and to some degree reaction time/tasks. Practically every time I make contact in the woods my guys will get chewed up, often without even spotting who is shooting them. Even more frustrating is that since they haven't identified a target they aren't doing anything but dying. Any rifle team/squad with the slightest bit of training would respond with a fusillade of fire and hand grenades in order to try to gain fire superiority over their ambushers, even if it were just area fire (spray and pray). I thought the previous versions of the engine handled this rather fairly. Why the changes? Am I alone in this assessment?

Sounds like a fun campaign, but its not a "Recon" campaign. Its a "behind the lines" campaign that could be fought by an infantry platoon, an engineer platoon, etc. An actual scout/recon campaign would bore most players to tears. "Ok, I've been sitting here for two hours and nothing has happened. I dont guess the enemy is coming this way." Game End - Total Victory (you survived).

I would argue that recon units in CM are just "regular infantry," they just happen to be poorly armed regular infantry. And by poorly armed I mean they lack the versatility of a regular line squad. Yes, if you preview a QB map and know you have a lot of restrictive terrain to fight in, than you may be tempted to cherry pick some recon units that have a high ratio of SMGs. As you say, a great tactic if you are just looking for the best advantage in winning a game, not the way you should probably go if you are looking for a realistic challenge. I was agreeing that scout squads can best be replicated in game by giving them higher morale and experience status for the small boosts in capabilities this will give them, but in the long run I don't feel their special skills are really at all applicable to CM. Honestly, I feel the same about snipers. When supporting a line company a sniper team is often best utilized in the support by fire position providing precision supporting fires or used on a flank as an OP (and thus, often not even involved in the actual fight). Sniping as a standalone mission is also outside the purview of CM, for many of the same reasons I gave for scout/recon formations. If you are just looking for game fun with interesting and unique units that have distinct capabilities than I would suggest another game system that focuses on rock, paper, scissors type of roles for the entities. I say this with all sincerity- I just don't think you will get it from a game designed from the ground up as a specific simulator. The recon units in CM are there to simply give the game flavor and provide scenario designers (and cherry pickers) some more options, not to conduct actual recon missions as they would RL. But I know you have been around for a long time and are well aware of the games shortcomings.

I have to agree with Erwin, though for a different reason. Reconnaissance (Scout) units are especially trained, organized, and equipped to seek out the enemy and report back to higher. These specially tasked units work directly for the staff intelligence officers (at any level) and report directly to them and the commander. Their tasks are often based on the intelligence officers assessment of the enemy and terrain in coordination with the operations officer who is focused on the mission. For example, your battalion has to seize a key crossroads. The intel officer identifies three avenues of approach, each with a possible chokepoint, as well as likely enemy observation points and defensive positions. The Ops officer identifies preferred support by fire positions and assault positions and (along with the fires supporter) likely locations for mortar firing positions. All of these locations are given to the scout platoon. In US doctrine these are called Named Areas of Interest or NAIs. The scout platoon then develops a plan for movement into the area and designates which scout team will investigate and report back on each NAI. This is when fieldcraft comes into play. The scout team leader than has to develop his own plan of action and attempt to gain as much info as possible. Quite often this will be limited to getting within a few hundred meters of a suspected enemy position and just listening. You don't have to actually see a military unit in order to confirm its presence, they are notoriously loud. You can hear vehicles, you can hear picket pounding, you can hear digging, etc. If the SL doesn't hear anything than he may or may not decide to creep closer for eyes on, depending on how ballsy he is feeling and how many more NAIs he needs to clear. The scout platoons primary mission is to confirm or deny the intel officers predictions/assumptions of the enemies disposition and assist the ops officer with his planning of actions on the objective. All of which, by the way, is outside the scope of Combat Mission. This is not a scouting game. Its not a reconnaissance game. Stealth is not a factor. Its a game designed to portray armed COMBAT at the company and battalion level. There are reconnaissance units in the game. But that doesn't make it a reconnaissance game. There are engineer units in the game but it also does a horrendous job of replicating the capabilities they bring to the battlefield as well. Recon units were included because sometimes such units find themselves fighting on the front line or caught up in an enemy offensive, etc. So, in game terms, they are essentially poorly armed, low manpower "regular" infantry units.

I've played them both as well, each for different reasons. If you are looking for a click fest, adrenaline rush, ending in screams of frustration and pounding of fists, try CoH. If you are looking for a tactical sim that will test your ability to conduct fire and maneuver while you enjoy your ham sandwich with just a touch of Grey Poupon than go for CM. They are so different its even hard to compare them. Essentially CoH could be played with Orcs and Space Marines on distant planets... oh wait a minute... If someone tells you they think CoH rocks and CM sucks, ask them to explain the difference between a 251/9 and a 251/10 and then draw your own conclusions.

Check out my CMSF tutorials. First one is of a rifle company assaulting a town. Very applicable to your discussion here. There are supporting videos on Youtube.

Some more suggestions. Most of these read as after action reports at the squad and platoon level. A little hard to believe at times so take it all in with a skeptical eye, I am not an expert on post WW2 german literature but often thought when I was reading these books that it could all be propaganda. Good resource for getting an idea of what small unit actions looked like though. http://www.amazon.com/Infantry-Aces-Soldier-Stackpole-Military-ebook/dp/B004BJ11E0/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top http://www.amazon.com/Panzer-Aces-Commanders-Stackpole-Military-ebook/dp/B008ML7DEK/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&ie=UTF8&qid=1401200766&sr=1-1&keywords=panzer+aces

The difference between one armys tank crews and another. One army devotes time and energy to crew drills and gunnery. The next one over perfects moss and bark collection battle drills.

You all may be interested to know there was a rather lively debate re: scenario size/design in the CMBS development forums about this same issue. I think we managed to advocate rather successfully for a more balanced scenario spread (small to large) in CMBS. I prefer smaller scenarios as well and enjoy the immersive feel you get from playing a campaign. I think CM is maximized at the CO/BN level and just turns into a micro-managing nightmare at larger organization levels. PLus, as mentioned above, trying to fit the brigade/regimental staff work into a single evening required with some of the larger scenarios is just not conducive to enjoying the game. Trying to conduct terrain analysis, enemy analysis, friendly troop analysis, Course of Action development, etc as a single person when in real life it would be done by 50+ is simply daunting. The argument that is usually put forward is "well if you want a certain type of scenario than start designing your own." The problem with that argument, from my perspective, is that most of the players who prefer smaller, quicker scenarios don't have a lot of time to begin with. And GOOD scenario design can take weeks, if not longer. So its a trade off (play vs design) most who are constrained by life, work, family, etc dont want to make. I am currently working on a "Beginner Campaign" of platoon and company scenarios designed to introduce the beginning player to tactics and game mechanics. But plan to move on to a company level "week in the life" type campaign next.

Its OK, I am such a cynical and sarcastic old fart I rarely follow my own advice.

Perhaps I should post a separate thread for this question but here goes. I have been struggling with how to determine LOS in wooded areas. Is it blocked by the art (i.e. individual trees and bushes)? Or is it a standard distance based on the color of the tile (weeds, grass, heavy woods, etc). It seems to vary widely depending on adjacent terrain. For example, a team in woods can see across a weeds or brush tile to the next woods tile but not necessarily through the woods tile on the other side or a woods tile directly adjacent. I have tried Bils jigsaw pattern as well but found kill sacks were often incomplete due to LOS restrictions of the individual teams. I suspect he will have issues with that from the above screenshot. Then to complete the "trap" I have tried to move teams forward onto the enemy units flank, even just a square or two, only to have them get spotted and wasted during movement. Perhaps it would be a little easier to set up these ambushes with a clearer understanding of LOS in deep woods.

Defense. Three elements: A dismounted force to hold terrain, a dismounted reserve, and a mobile gun element. For the mobile gun element, use the same guidance for the mobile gun platforms in the offense. A couple vehicles, strong enough to go toe to toe with what you believe your opponent has. Keep in mind this is your fire brigade element, the intent is not to take on the entire enemy tank force, but to reinforce the AT elements you already have along your MLR (main line of resistance). I would purchase these first, just to see what you have left to play with for points. You can always downgrade them later. These will probably be individual vehicle purchases. Then study your map and look for good engagement areas (EA) for AT guns and HMGs. These are usually fairly open areas with relatively long LOS and lots of options for setting in defenses. Try not to pick defensive position locations that would be too obvious. (Say, for example, the copse of trees at the high water mark at Gettysburg.) Get a solid number of EAs in your head (usually 2-3 on a medium map) along with battle positions (BPs) to cover them (usually 1-2 per EA). Purchase forces to man battle positions to cover each engagement area. These should consist of an AT gun, a HMG, and some sort of infantry support for security (usually a squad or two). If you purchase the AT guns/HMGs individually you can assign them to the particular platoon HQ for that BP. It wont always work out but a good practice. Then look for the other avenues of approach the enemy could use (and probably will after he discovers your EAs). Once again, usually 2-3 for a medium sized map. Cover these with infantry squad and platoon battle positions. Make sure the teams or squads within each BP can mutually support each other. Keep in mind areas that might be well suited to a minefield or a TRP. These are often the last well covered and concealed positions that an opponent may use prior to his assault. Running into a minefield or a well timed arty strike will definitely ruin his day. Be sure to place the MF where you can cover it by fire. An undefended minefield is a total waste of effort. Plan for a platoon or so as a reserve. Depending on the size of your map you may need to consider mounting them. As you make these deliberations, keep a running tab. For example, we might have a need for three AT guns, three HMGs, three squads for security, and three more rifle platoons. One minefield. So you can see right away thats a rifle company reinforced with another rifle platoon, an AT platoon and possibly some MGs depending on which Force you are playing. Make that purchase (be sure to set your quality, fitness, etc.) Buy your mines (usually just one purchase is enough). Buy some arty. In the defense you can never have enough arty so dont be squeamish. Consider buying some foxholes. Prioritize their use with AT guns first, followed by HMGs, other AT weapons, leaders, and then rifle teams. You will have to go back and forth a lot between your map, your notes and the purchase screen until you get the hang of this. Experiment with force quality and weapon types to get the most optimal purchase price. An example (for mostly infantry battle): US rifle BN whittled down to - 1 rifle company 1 rifle platoon 3x AT guns 3x HMGs 2x Sherman M4A3s or 3-4x M10 TDs M16 AA HT 2x 81mm MTR platoons 1x 105mm Arty Batt 1x Mines 1x Foxholes For an Armor defense I would probably actually purchase something very similar to the Armor attack force, minus the HTs for the infantry. Fight your Armor in a mobile defense with subsequent battle positions. Tanks work best when they have movement options, they make pretty crappy (and dead) pill boxes. Engage briefly, fall back past a BP occupied by another tank element, attempt an end run on the opponents flank, etc. Plan liberal use of smoke to cover your retrogrades. Often this means calling for smoke as soon as you start to engage the enemy, depending on the CFF times, so that it starts falling at the same time you need to withdraw. Or you can use the smoke dischargers on your vehicles (if they have them.) Use your infantry to defend the VP or wooded/urban areas that the enemy might want/need to conduct his attack.

Some basics considerations: For any attack you will need a DISMOUNTED FORCE to seize terrain. Usually at least three maneuver elements (a platoon with three squads, a company with three platoons). These can be tasked as Support by Fire (to suppress enemy locations, one or two locations at a time), Assault (to actually move into the target squares), and reserve/exploitation (to reinforce your assault element or push forward as the assault element consolidates). The exploitation element can then become the SBF once they make a new contact, the SBF becomes your new Assault, and the assault force (probably a little depleted and resting/rearming) becomes your reserve/exploitation force. Rinse and repeat. This same structure can be used at the platoon, company and battalion level. Always select to have your infantry armed with some man portable AT weapons (Pzchk or BZ) If you are playing a scenario or QB with relatively open terrain than purchase armor along the same guidelines (three elements). Also in the attack its good to have a MOUNTED FORCE. I usually stick with just a platoon for this. Most commonly I will buy a mech company with HTs and cut all the vehicles except for one platoons worth. The intent being the HTs are for moving your assault and/or reserve platoons across open ground. The vehicles (if you keep them protected) can be used to shuffle platoons forward. If you were to buy an entire mounted company you would invariably have 70% of your HTs sitting behind a treeline doing nothing. Support the attack with a MOUNTED GUN element. Depending on what you think your opponent is buying and what the terrain is like this can be met with a few cheap HTs with infantry guns or AA guns mounted, all the way up to a couple Panthers or Jumbos. The primary purpose of this element is to provide suppression support to your infantry. Set them up in what we would call an Attack By Fire position (far enough back to be safe from hand held AT weapons) and have them pound known and suspected enemy positions as your other elements move into position. They can also be used to reduce positions that might be difficult to seize due to terrain (like the lack of a covered route to the target squares). Other added benefits: these can serve as "Fire Brigade" element that can move quickly from one area of the map to another to provide emergency suppression. Also, they serve as a mobile AT capability in infantry dominated scenarios. Buy some mtrs or arty, as much as you can afford. For most medium QBs this will be a 105mm battery or a couple 81mm MTR platoons. These work well for providing suppression as well as disrupting and/or dislodging forces that may be in defilade to your ABF/SBF. If you plan on the use of smoke early you can be sure to conserve enough ammo to fulfill that requirement. So for the offense (german): Infantry dominated QB (my preferred, I just work out beforehand with my opponent to keep vehicle purchases at around 30% of the total). Three element infantry force: 2 Rifle platoons 1 Rifle platoon with HTs (251s with a 251/10) MG platoon to provide more suppression, can be moved in HTs like rifle platoons Company HQ Mounted gun element: 2x 251/9s 1-2x HT with AA capability and/or PZIVs or PZVs depending on your preference and what you can afford Fire support: 2x 81mm platoons (offboard) Start with a PzGr bn (be sure to set veteran status, morale, fitness, etc before purchasing) Delete everything except for one company. (Once you are down to one company you can delete all the BN HQ assets.) At the bottom chose your preferences for vehicles, AT weapons etc in the company (make sure it is still highlighted when you make these selections.) Delete all the vehicles within the company except for one platoon. Follow the above advice (womble's) on choosing your armored vehicles. Purchasing fire support is pretty straight forward. Armor dominated QB: Dismounted force: I usually go with just one rifle platoon with HTs so they can keep up with the tanks. Buy two if you can afford it (with or without HTs). Mounted gun element: This actually becomes your three element maneuver force. Three tank platoons, reduced to 3-4 vehicles each depending on what you can afford. Purchase a tank battalion and reduce it to a company. 2x HT with AA capability. These are good for providing area suppression when standoff is available, as well as the AA aspect. Fire support: the same as above. The point is creating a combined arms team that should be capable of handling most threats. I would recommend making sure you have backups for each system as well. In other words, dont buy one Tiger when you can buy three PZIVs. Having only one unit cover down on a task (ABF, SBF, Assault) is extremely risky and a bad idea. Getting to know how to manipulate the purchase screen just takes experience. There is a process that you should follow and once you figure it out you will find it extremely versatile. For example, try purchasing all of your units as regulars, get the force you think you will need and then spend your remaining points upgrading your key units to veteran or crack. Its not necessary that every unit on the board have a crack rating and you will figure out which ones you can hedge on. This procedure allows you to get within a few points of your max as well. If this proves helpful to some I will add another one covering the defense.

I am a big advocate of doing some thorough planning before you push GO! on your first turn. See my tutorials on planning at the links below. As far as getting to know the enemy order of battle. I would stick to the game OBs provided in the force selection menu. If you use a historical one found on the internet, for example, it might not be exactly whats in the game OB. However, a word of caution. A lot of players, and some scenario designers, like to cherry pick. In other words that single 76mm AT gun might not necessarily mean you are facing an AT platoon with 3-4 guns. Also, depending on the size of the scenario, that AT gun might just be cross attached to the enemy rifle company to support a local defense (though doctrinally this was rarely the case, usually the smallest maneuver elements were the company or platoon - when it came to task org, all you grognards put away your keyboards). But you are thinking the right thoughts. Key weapon systems are a good indicator of the type and size of the element you are facing. Spend some time studying the OB in the Editor of take some screen shots that you can refer to while playing.

Kill sack, ambush kill zone, engagement area... pick your flavor. Essentially its where you want to kill the enemy and you set up your forces based on that location. The whole point of setting up behind the bocage (in cover of course, I was assuming there was a second line of bocage or buildings, some sort of cover) was to negate the armored threat. In order to clear the area his infantry would have to move beyond the bocage line, where the armor lacked an LOS. If a gap existed or he created one and he was able to move his armor beyond the bocage line (into the kill zone) then the range should be short enough to guarantee a hit with handheld AT weapons. If you defend forward (along the forward bocage line) a competent enemy will use his long range weapons (including any armor) to dislodge you and create casualties in the process, and he will do it from a distance (or behind a couple inches of steel) where he is relatively safe. By setting up a little farther back (think of it as a reverse slope or reverse bocage defense) you force him to come after you, at a range where you hold the advantage. Granted as has been stated this is all a whiteboard exercise, it would really depend on the terrain and situation.

Based on personal experience a poorly trained and equipped insurgent force, regular army, national guard (we'll call these tier two or three) can not stand toe to toe with a well trained, well led, exceedingly well equipped modern army (referred to as tier one). Whether it be US, Brit, Canadian, Polish, French or whomever. I would argue the Russians (their main force units) are so close to tier two that they dont really fit into tier one at all. I saw it over and over. Numerically superior tier three force concentrates locally, armed with machineguns and RPGs, perhaps even a few armored vehicles and gets obliterated. Usually with the casualty ratio astronomically in favor of of the tier one force. Which is why in both Iraq and Afghanistan, after a few years of extremely hard knocks the Iraqi insurgents and the Taliban stopped engaging in open warfare and went underground. Only raising their collective heads when they felt assured of a local victory (which even then they rarely accomplished and never without significant losses). I totally agree with you that Syria would drag on for years. As a COIN op. We could stop open warfare fairly quickly. Simply be killing anyone whop tried to stand against us, as we did in Iraq and Afghanistan. It may sound harsh but believe me, its that simple. Let me reiterate, I am talking about open warfare, not insurgent type activities where there are actual enemy attempts to keep from ever being ID'd. Because being ID'd usually led to a flash bang going off next to your head at 3am and a one way ride in a Blackhawk.

LOL, I guess those BFers will never get it right. I have some serious self esteem issues - all of it psychically transferred from Steve, et al. But hey, I understand wanting a pixel resolution that makes your gee whiz bang gaming computer lug like a roller coaster on the long haul to the top. (Please, please, please, no one take these comments seriously. I am not talking about YOU. Just generalizing in good fun.)

Eh, a grenade in that close proximity with nothing but a pile of stones for cover would kill all participants, including (probably) the camera man. A US grenade anyway, you never know what you are going to get with one manufactured in the east. This is a perfect example of the sort of amateur warfighting we ran into constantly (at least early on) in Iraq and Afghanistan. Eventually we killed off the really brave (and amateur) fighters, leaving us with a bunch of bomb makers. Just another reason we don't need to get involved. We could stop the fighting in a matter of weeks, but then we would be back dodging IEDs and snipers for 10 years while we tried to rebuild the govt. Only to have the extremists voted into office as soon as we withdrew. Yeah, give me some more of that!