Plaza_Olmedo

Also regarding AT spotting, in the Spanish Civil War, a common tactic among republican “engineers” (mostly miners with explosive experience) was to lay down until tanks bypass them and then throw some dynamite at them from the rear. Bear in mind that AT crews are not large units, but 1-2 soldiers, which are much more difficult to spot if well hidden. BTW, it might be a long time before one totally avoids making stupid mistakes. Just, today I sent a sniper team to the top of a church tower hoping they could have a panoramic view of the field. Actually, they succeeded spotting most of the enemy force, since every German in town started to shoot at them. They lasted less than 20 seconds…

As also a new player, I guess there isn’t a classical learning curve for CM. First you learn the basic commands, specially the unintuitive ones (like hiding or the combined ones, as assaulting a building). From there, is mostly watching AAR’s, youtube tutorials, contemporary field manuals and following the forum. Besides, I don’t think that “cracking” a battle is the right approach. You develop a battle plan and do your best to execute it flawlessly. Sometimes you’ll do fine, sometimes it will be a disaster. The important thing is to learn from your mistakes and avoid doing the same things in the future. Pleasantly Shaded Wood was one of my first battles, and I did lots and lots of brutal errors. I sent whole riffle squads following my scouts path, just to discover there was a minefield. I set up a line in the middle sunken road, discovering this was the worst cover position ever. I prepared my final assault doing a mortar barrage that went too short and took out almost a third of my assaulting platoon. At the end, I sent that platoon on a massive assault only to expose them to a MG42 at their flank, taking heavy casualties. At that point I decided to just let it go and cease fire. I still got a minor victory… The main point being that if I replay the same battle today I would do a lot better, not because I would know where the enemy is but because I’ll know how to play the game better…I guess that is the only learning curve possible for CM…

According to John Keegan's Six armies in Normandy the first infantry wave of the Canadian 8th didn't have DD support, since due to rough sea the tanks landed in dry terrain. Unfortunately, he doesn't specifies after how many time the tanks actually got there...

I disagree. XO Teams and other crews are just units that we are willing to unrealistically risk over other soldiers because of their lack of combat utility. I believe that Yankeedog nails the issue: we DO have medic teams, we just don’t see them. And I believe that there is little sense in implementing them and making them player controlled, except for a couple of situations. Besides, I believe that buddy aid simulates an important RL combat issue. I have zero military knowledge, but I read somewhere that while killing enemy soldiers have a big morale impact, wounding them it’s more effective, tactically speaking, since you are not taking out of the battle just the injured combatant, but also the guy(s) struggling to keep him alive until a medic evacuates them. So even if someday medics are implemented, I don’t believe that they should replace the actual system.

Actually, that was my first intuition, but I found myself not pleased at all. In almost all my QB, I find the enemy MLR (or at least they first line of defense, maybe I’m getting the concept wrong) on one of my flanks, which means that it will probably be my opposite flank platoon which will arrive next to the target zone and conduct the final assault, where I really miss the extra firepower. I have the same feeling, so I guess that one of the main positive things of keeping C2 is maintaing green units as a fit fighting force under duress So, combining your advices, I guess that an acceptable way to go could be (of course, depending the situation): a) keep the mortars with the Company HQ. Splitting the MG among the different platoons. c) Send the HQ with the green units. Just another question, do you know if Sections HQ provides C2 as a platoon HQ or they are not enough?

I don’t think that respecting the Geneva convention qualifies as Disneyland or as something more unrealistic than your troops avoiding targeting surrendered units among total mayhem just because they raise their hands. The true issue here is that “medics” (which, as Yankee Dog pointed out, aren't really medics) are actual combatants so I guess it would be almost impossible for the AI to distinguish when it would be appropriate to shoot at them. Of course, this is a really unimportant problem, considering that target arc should do the trick. Anyway, I just say that if someday medic teams were implemented, it would be nice if they could be automatically treated as surrendered troops, unless you specifically target them.

Totally agree...today my troops killed a single german in the open while performing buddy aid...it didn't felt right...

In company size battles, I usually advance my 3 infantry platoons from different directions (left, center and right). That leaves me with the problem of how to deal with my Heavy Weapons Platoons. I usually leave my mortars behind with the HQ for indirect fire, and split the MGs among the 3 platoons. However, I’m concerned with how this affect their performance since they lose contact with their platoon HQ. Am I doing it right or should I keep the platoon together? I know that a platoon organized in sections help maintaining C2, but that’s not always the case, and even in that case, they inevitabily lose contact with the platoon HQ. On a related issue, I leave my Company HQ far behind, presuming they will keep C2 by radio contact. Is that correct? Should they follow the Platoon HQ’s with no radio or is that just an unnecessary risk? Thanks!

Thanks, On further research, it was actually previously discussed in these threads (sorry): http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=97166 http://ww.combatmission.com/community/showthread.php?t=100626 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98983 BTW, in the manual, it says that assault missions also give the attacker some recon of enemy positions...

Hi, could someone explain the differences between Assault, Attack and Probe? I just can’t find them in the manual or in the forum… Thank you!

I guess my main concern was with battles and not campaigns, since, as many pointed out, in a single battle there is no aftermath penalty for casualties, and I’m kind of training for campaigns. I guess an “objective” way is to consider “acceptable” the other side parameter objective (if applies). I also agree with Erwin. On second thought, my 23% casualties is much higher: almost a whole platoon or roughly a third of the troops actually engaged in combat. Much more appropriate with what I felt during the battle. If I’m not wrong, the Road to Montebourg briefing stated that a 10% of casualties was considered low (from the Allied perspective), so I guess a 15% -20% could be considered standard for a single battle, no matter what the German parameters are, and then adjust the rate to mission difficulty.

Hi everybody, I’m a new CM player and I would like to ask something that have been bugging me. I don’t have much war gaming experience or WWII tactics knowledge. However I did play a lot of Close Combat Invasion of Normandy, where the feature of naming your squads had the effect to really attach me to my virtual troops, and gave me a frustrating feeling whenever I lose too many of them, especially since that almost always happens because of my bad decisions. So I guess I like not only to complete objectives, but doing so with the less casualties possible. I just finished my first “real” battle (the first ones where “save/reload” training) with a 23% of casualties in veteran level. I guess it’s OK, considering the Germans lost 90% of their troops, but it felt like I took a lot of punishment during some phases. Of course the “acceptable” number of casualties depends of the scenario, the number and type of opposing forces and, in RL, the importance of the objectives. But I would like to ask the most experienced players the range of casualties they would consider acceptable in a mission. P.S: I'm sorry, my english it's kind of rusty...