Jump to content

domfluff

Members
  • Content Count

    545
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Everything posted by domfluff

  1. Thank you. Obviously the question of a specific solution, versus a generalised "correct" one is a different one. My actual solution to the problem assumed that the correct way about this was to be bold, and to use the platoon to "attack" the left hill, and if there was anyone there, they'd make contact, find out what they could, then break. Route in: The "South Yard" is the only viable covered rally point, so that's where the "run" part of hit-and-run is going. At the orchard, using the low walls as cover for the low BMPs. Started to pick up contacts, which the BMPs opened fire on. Progressing the attack across the orchard and finding some AT-14's. The nice thing about the Russian smoke launchers is that the BMPs can cover the retreat of the recon platoon - their smoke will travel forward enough to give them cover. Obviously, this is accepting a large amount of risk for that asset, but it does give a very good picture of what forces are actually present. I think this kind of thing might actually be the way the asset is intended to be used, but that was the question really - what's the intended purpose of the infantry battalion recon platoon.
  2. Notably, these work correctly (reload after five shots) in CM Black Sea, for both versions in the game.
  3. The AT-3 version of the ATGM BRDM has six AT-3s racked on top of the vehicle, with 14 in total carried. The AT-5 version has five ready, with 15 total carried. The vehicle will fire off the readied ATGMs rapidly, then take a long time to reload. The AT-3 version will fire off six of these before reloading. The AT-5 will fire off... also six. Where did the sixth come from? Before and after screenshots: ( 14 - 6 = 8 remaining) (15 - 6 fired = 9. Where did the sixth one come from?)
  4. Thank you for this, this makes a lot of sense. In terms of the CMSF 2 TO&E: Under Mechanised Infantry, there's a "Recon Company" and a "Recon Company BRDM", both representing detachments from the recon battalion, I believe. Recon Company is an HQ unit in a BMP, and two platoon as the above (2 BMPS, 2 recon squads, 1 HQ, 1 ATGM). The difference here is that all of the HQs have man-carried radios, which, combined with having an HQ unit in common, makes them far more useful for passing around spotting contacts through C2 links. Recon Company BRDM is the above BRDM unit, 1 BRDM HQ and two platoons of 3 BRDMs, with 1x HQ, 2x recon squads, with HQ radios. There's also a "Self propelled ATGM Platoon", which is an HQ recon BRDM, and three of the ATGM BRDM's with AT-5s (all of these are BRDM-2's). That's clearly from the same upper formation, which isn't depicted at CM scale, but obviously can work with that (either by adding single vehicles, or the whole platoon).
  5. Nah, Paper Tiger did a three mission campaign called Perdition, as well as the 15 mission Road to Dinas (and tons more, obviously). Link here, if you want it: https://file.io/u91Chh
  6. Actually, I think I've answered my question - Based on a few sources ("The Russian Way of War", "Blinding the Enemy: Soviet Tactical Reconnaissance in the Rear Area", and a couple more I've randomly dug up from the internet), it looks as though the battalion recon platoon is assigned on a fairly ad-hoc basis from the available infantry. Tactical reconnaissance then seems to have three main categories - observation, ambush and recon-in-force. Observation is something anyone with a pair of eyes or binoculars can do, strictly. This formation won't be terribly good at it, since they don't have man-portable radios, but it's a lot better than nothing. Ambush is where that ATGM really makes sense - being able to head fast and deep into the field and setting up an unexpected threat like that (and then packing it up once you've triggered the ambush) makes a lot of sense. Recon in force is the other part, and represents the kind of risky, bold approach mentioned above. The recon platoon, then, is not a disposable asset, but it's a high-risk job. I think they're supposed to head out fast and deep, and encounter the enemy head-on, forcing a response. The intention is hit-and-run.
  7. See, that's what confuses me - the BRDM-equipped recon company (a higher level formation) looks more logical to me for pure observation - you've small vehicles, with high visibility, and a disproportionate amount of fire to get you out of trouble. More importantly, the BRDM recon company has two platoons of BRDMs, each of which has an HQ unit with a radio. Clearly then, this can observe mounted or unmounted. The company HQ doesn't carry a radio, so he has to hang around his vehicle, but that's fine. (What does confuse me here is that the BRDM company is full of RPG-7 ammo, and doesn't have any RPGs, but shrug). The singular recon platoon in a mechanised battalion seems like it's set up to perform a different job, especially since it has an embedded ATGM. One ATGM won't stop any serious enemy movement, but might over-match enough to get you out of trouble. So... my guess is that the intention is for this to be used for a recon-in-force - along previously observed routes, but before risking the main bulk of the attack. This way, they'd be used boldly, relying on the firepower of the BMPs and ATGMs to get them out of trouble if and when they find it. But I have no idea if that's correct, or if that represents the doctrinal intent of the formation.
  8. Oh, and it's definitely much better for not having them, but you do feel the lack of them.
  9. Spoilers below for the old Perdition campaign for CMSF 1, since it illustrates a point quite well. A Syrian and Russian Mechanised infantry battalion contains a single "recon platoon". This consists of two BMPs, two four man recon squads, an HQ squad (with SVD sniper rifle), and an ATGM - in this case an AT-4A. This Red vs Red campaign (made by Paper Tiger) is a good example of the situation I'm puzzling over, so I'm going to spoil part of the first scenario of the campaign. In this scenario, you're given the above to start with. There's an obvious area to leave the FO (with access to multiple 120mm mortar batteries), labelled as "Point 194" to the bottom of the below image. You're also given the above recon platoon, and tasked with finding the locations of the ATGMs overlooking the valley. Your follow-on T-62s and BMPs will ostensibly have to follow the road to the right, leading them into a kill zone. Even if you didn't follow the road, you're still going to be exposed to wherever the ATGMs are. This is where the ATGMs are, 1km way on facing hillcrests. The question is, how is the Recon platoon supposed to be used? They have no man portable radios, and limited access to advanced optics (you have the sniper scope and the AT-4A, and otherwise binoculars). You're tasked with using this recon platoon to discover the locations of the enemy ATGMs, so that your FO can put down mortar fire onto them. You're also tasked with not wasting them, since they're a valuable asset. What's the doctrinal method here? It can't be "go that way until you blow up", surely? It feels like a single recon platoon for a battalion should be a tactical, aggressive asset - being active and getting their face into danger, but using their firepower to pull themselves out. I'm not sure how this is intended to work in a world with no drones or javelin optics, since surely the AT-14s will spot you long before you spot them, all else being equal? Are you supposed to recon-by-fire and guess the locations?
  10. Here's a thought - speed mapping? Going back to Doom, there have been "contests" where a theme was given, and the participants have a hour (or whatever is appropriate, might be one week over a forum) to make a map. There's no reason why something like that couldn't be done for Combat Mission.
  11. Oh, I love the restrictions here, don't get me wrong. Still, it might be nice to experiment with different loadouts - is there still a campaign extraction tool floating around?
  12. Also, I do think this campaign is a great advert for the Stryker - having just one of those knocking around would be tremendously helpful here, and you really feel it's absence. I think the British Jackal might also make a lot more sense that usual in this kind of scenario - certainly an upgrade from the humvees, anyway.
  13. I actually think this is conceptually more like "The Devil's Descent" or "The Outlaws" for CMBN - there are obviously practical differences, but the main thing is that you have a campaign which is following a company-sized force, sometimes over the same terrain - that allows you to become familiar with your forces and the terrain in a way that most campaigns don't, and means you really feel any losses. I'm not really sure that's a period thing, so much as having a structure where it's plausible to see small unit actions.
  14. It's also the case that the old stuff all still works - it doesn't take advantage of the new toys, and it might well have balance issues, but it's all functional.
  15. Yeah, this is great - reminds me of "Green 9" in structure, but as a campaign.
  16. Oh, this looks great, have played through the first mission. Would definitely suggest uploading this to the Scenario Depot - having this hosted somewhere other than your Dropbox is a good idea, for visibility and redundancy.
  17. A quick guide to Cold War doctrine, much of which is still applicable in CMBS: https://balagan.info/soviet-order-of-battle-and-doctrine-in-the-cold-war In particular:
  18. Unfortunately for you, the Russians do. Russian (and Soviet, and Syrian) artillery is only available at the higher levels of command. That means any request for fire has to take the time to go up several levels and back down again, increasing the response times. Many low level units can't call for indirect fires at all. The intention is to centralise command and control, and to enforce actions on a larger scale. You're talking about a military who's doctrine has traditionally emphasised the *Regiment* as the smallest tactical unit. The correct way to use conventional red forces are to mass up as much as possible, be fluid in your plan, but blunt and brutal when it comes to executing it.
  19. Yeah, flamethrowers are both incredibly awkward and devastatingly powerful - if you manage to get close enough, you'll usually clear out the fortified target in a single burst. Also, Crocodiles. As in reality, the Churchill Crocodile is by far the best use of a flamethrower, with ridiculous range, heavy armour and a 75mm gun to back it up. Man-portable flamethrowers might be the most difficult unit to use effectively in Combat Mission, but that doesn't mean they're modelled incorrectly. One thing that CM does extremely well is give you an appreciation of range and scale - the 30m range of a man-portable flamethrower is extremely close, and more than anything dictates how they can be used - an awful lot can go wrong over that kind of distance.
  20. Well, sure, but you can certainly set up a competitive tournament scenario where both sides can have known compositions, with zero hidden information pre-battle. That's not every scenario, of course, but I think that's far from a miracle.
  21. There are a couple of problems with Hidden Objectives - they can certainly be "unfair", especially if they're badly defined - e.g., a hidden Occupy objective, and you miss the action spot by one square. The other issue is - how hidden are they, really? They're always available in the editor, and certainly accessible on repeat plays, so they're often not the most elegant solution to the problem. If randomness was desired, I'd imagine that points for taking out specific units with randomised reinforcement times, might be more appropriate.
  22. Sure, but that line of argument obliviates the need for vp at all. Since vp exist, they should serve a useful purpose as a means to measure the player's success. That's not straight forward - the WW2 games are broadly symmetric, so setting up roughly balanced victory conditions is a lot easier there, whereas the modern games (and especially cmsf) require a lot more thought.
  23. Yup, that seems to be the case. Just Combatants, Spies and VBIED. Absolutely not - Fighters have much better equipment, usually carry more ammunition, and (on Typical) better soft factors. Combatants are rubbish, Fighters are tenacious and well equipped (or "well equipped"), up to and including ATGMs. I haven't compared the two, but I'd expect their soft factors to be better at least. Off-map rockets I can see, but the mortars they currently have are pretty great, and an upgrade from what they got in CMSF 1. I've never participated in an insurgency, but I imagine that 120mm mortars require a much longer supply chain than 82mm ones, since the ammunition will be harder to cart around, etc. Mines would be good, but you do get IED's. Not having access to "IED mines" is a problem, certainly. Actual fortifications are dodgier, perhaps. I imagine that you really don't want to be digging trenches for the most part. I'd not really be happy with this outside of scenarios - and you can already do this in a scenario. In general, combatants are a one-time thing. You can't reasonably expect them to do more than one task (ambush here, defend this building, etc.), and they'll probably expend themselves on that task. Would be nice, but I think the current compromise is okay. Haven't dug around the points yet, you might well be correct.
  24. There are definitely quite a few of those for CM - CMBN Buying the Farm, for example, I was playing as a multiplayer game as the defending Germans, and was wiped out, with the US in command of the field. I'd caused enough damage for the end result to be a Draw. The victory conditions in CM are often awkward or counter intuitive, but you can do quite a lot with them.
  25. Ooh, okay, but I imagine you can still monkey around with the numbers until you get something that makes sense.
×
×
  • Create New...