Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


domfluff last won the day on October 24 2018

domfluff had the most liked content!

About domfluff

  • Rank
    Junior Member


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. That thread's still around in the CMSF Tactics forum. A few points that I've always found interesting about that one: People frequently over-value this kind of thing, if it's accompanied by lots of pretty pictures. Even if the information is garbage. I think it's a very good example of the kind of mental trap that is really easy to fall into, in CM or in reality. e.g.,: The focus is entirely on room clearing, and how you storm a building, when that's absolutely not the priority. The scenario posited assumes total information and control - the technique in that thread will work absolutely fine if you have overwhelming fire superiority, and total control over the battlespace. If you can suppress the target building, and ensure that all buildings with LOS to that building, or (more importantly) to the approach of that building are clear or similarly suppressed, then storming in a manner similar to that listed is fine. Of course, if you can achieve that, you probably don't need to storm the building at all. What I find fascinating is that you can find real-world textbook examples of this kind of wrong thinking. Not this technique specifically, but in terms of how urban warfare is approached and carried out.
  2. domfluff

    campaign Semper Fi - AAVs everywhere

    Aside from the "platoon" being 12 vehicles, there's also confirmation bias at work - the platoon is a mobile asset, which is assigned to where it's needed. Since Combat Mission deals with the explodey parts, games scenarios are generally going to represent "where it's needed" , so you'll see more of them there than "average".
  3. domfluff

    2019 Reporting For Duty

    This 'un
  4. domfluff

    2019 Reporting For Duty

    Three campaigns, yes? UK, Dutch, Canadian? Base game, Marine and German campaigns are done.
  5. Easiest way to figure things out is to go into the editor and play around. Squads split using the "split squads" command, and give you a quick insight into how they're supposed to be used. Other commands exist to split off AT teams, scout teams and the like. For example (top of my head, may not be entirely accurate): Basic US Rifle Platoon consists of - HQ Unit 2 x MMG 3 x Rifle squads (9 men each) The HQ unit includes a forward observer for the company light mortars and drones. The rifle squads break symmetrically, with 2x MGs, 2x grenade launchers , and sometimes one marksman, depending on the unit. Each fireteam is therefore capable of doing everything by itself (suppression, indirect fire, etc.), so the two work in concert to achieve an objective. US squad leaders have the ability to call down the company mortars, but they won't be good at it. In CMSF, they all have radios and PDAs to stay in contact, so this networking is important. Everyone has night vision equipment. Stryker (MOUT) platoons have squads that split into three teams, one with assault charges to breach walls. in urban environments. Marine platoons have a similar overall layout, but have larger squads, so split into three symmetric fireteams. They do not have full-auto weaponry, but do have decent optics, making for longer ranged, more accurate fire. Marines do not have as many Javelins as the army. UK Platoons are similar to the US, but the HQ unit includes a light mortar. They have better optics than the mainline US troops (but full auto, unlike the Marines), but have fewer Javelins. In general terms, everyone is usually mounted on something, but what they're mounted on will differ. Strykers are taxis, with excellent comms. Bradleys and Warriors are fighting vehicles. Bradleys have some anti-armour (TOWs, which I wouldn't rely on), whereas the British Warrior IFV's 30mm cannon is superb at chewing up BMPs, but balks at anything heavier than that. Marines have their AAV's, which are amphibious, massive and sluggish. Powerful, and carry a ton of guys, but very vulnerable. The Syrian infantry in CMSF2 have been built quite differently to CMSF1. In both, the Syrians work like a Soviet/Russian motor rifle unit, with their transport (BMP or BTR) being an integral part of the squad. The CMSF 2 build is more asymmetrical (and more "soviet"), in that the squad is built around an MG, and the squad has an asymmetric manoeuvre element and a support element, rather than the symmetric splits of the US squads.
  6. The thing is, most contemporary flamethrowers were pretty bad. The Crocodile and the US M1/M1A1 are marvels of engineering by comparison - the M1's main advantage over the rest was that the design kept constant pressure in the system, so the first trigger press would have exactly the same range as the last, rather than the pressure decreasing as the weapon is fired. Flamethrowers in general are a fairly dodgy idea. They obviously have their niche, but their use-case is fairly narrow. As with halftracks in general, and everything Panzergrenadier, the elements don't really make sense in isolation. If you had a fortified building that you can keep suppressed, but has to be cleared, you can either send infantry in to die in room-to-room clearing, or roll up a flamethrower to clear it for you. I agree that it's not a great idea, but it's no sillier than the Wasp. This kind of thing is typical for most examples in WW2 - it's the Crocodile which is unusually effective.
  7. domfluff

    A Plea to Developers

    I'd suggest it's more a question of: "What else can you do?" An ambush at point blank range doesn't give time or space for anything other than a direct assault, and if you attack through a target then you're not just re-claiming the initiative/position that you've lost, but the surrounding area. I do think it's more than "duck and cover" in terms of effective strategy, but it's also pretty much a worst-case scenario.
  8. domfluff

    Trigger question

    Yeah, Triggers are not "if-then", it's "wait here until this condition is met, then continue with your orders". In that sense they're fundamentally similar to the inbuilt "leave after" orders, but rather than being based on the clock, they're based on units in a location. You can be a little clever about it - if the assembly/waiting point is covering one flank, and you're happy for them to hang around there for the duration, then a trigger on the other flank becomes a "if they come this way, hold fast, if they go that way, go over there", but that's very map dependent. Conditions would improve the potential for scripting significantly, but the tools that exist are still pretty powerful.
  9. domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    Yeah, stealth doesn't seem to protect against air support.
  10. domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    VBIED, Combatants and Spies have civ density stealth, as per CMSF 1. The rest do no (so, technicals, taxis, fighters) Quick moves now *do* have stealth, which is a massive change. They will generate sporadic spotting contacts and shout-outs, but they can still quick move up very close with an RPG, so this is a serious threat now.
  11. domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    In fact, it seems stronger. Move commands before would hide them, but Bluefor would shout out "enemy infantry sighted", even without contact markers. Quick commands before would reveal them. With some quick testing, Move commands now prompt no shout-outs. Importantly, Quick commands do, but *do not reveal the uncons*, which means the AI can now use Civilian density. This is huge. Needs more precise testing for distances, etc, since I imagine Quick will be spotted from further range, but this is massive.
  12. domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    Civilian density seems to be working as per CMSF 1 with regards to combatants again. The patch notes only mention spies, but this seems to be functional as it was, which is really great. Testing can resume!
  13. domfluff

    How to use insurgent forces???

    Most spies can't - they're just pairs of eyes. The "Spy forward observer" can though. The issue is that (it seems) like Civilian Density isn't actually doing anything, so uncons and spies can't actually do their job - hiding amongst the civilian population. I'm hoping this was one of the outstanding issues that Steve was talking about with the CMSF 2 release, and that it will get fixed soon. It does make uncons pretty terrible otherwise.
  14. domfluff

    How to use insurgent forces???

    Spy has nothing to do with the VBIED. He comes with it so that you can have a "spotter" to tell the VBIED where to go, that's it.
  15. Term has existed since at least the original Rogue in 1980 It's a useful tool to learn what you're doing, but it's also a crutch. Use it, then try to ween yourself off it. Discipline, grasshopper.