Kaunitz

Another small discovery I was not really aware of: any wall/fence tile actually divides a square into parts or sub-squares. You can even tell as the movement order-cursor lights up only part of the action square if you hover over it. Soldiers that are ordered into such a sub-square will only position themselves randomly within that highlighted part (it also works with wire and sandbag-walls, but less reliably). The cool thing is that there is a nice variety of different shapes for fence-tiles (corner, diagonal, arrowhead) available, so there is a good choice of layouts for positional slots. Naturally, this made me think that placing wall-tiles seems to be a way to allow for more precise positioning of soldiers within the 8x8m square. It would be cool if we had "invisible" fences so that scenario-designers could fine-tune/give the map a finer grid at selected locations (such as a defensive position where the exact location of special weapons really matters)? Another positive side-effect is that wall-tiles reduce stance uncertainty. Afaik, idle soldiers that are positioned at wall-tiles are always kneeling (unless hiding or with a deployed MG), but never standing. This is a positive effect for scenario design (you can design positions with a kneeling occupant in mind - or a prone one for MG-positions). In particular, it is handy for FO-teams - you don't want to lose that LOS (and delay an arty-strike for two minutes) just because your FO-team randomly decided to go prone!

If anyone is interested, here is a map (for CM:BS) showing how terrain behaves in CM in regards to small depressions (1m and 2m). It should be quite self-explicatory (blue = ditch-lock elevation, black = ordinary elevation). It seems that the best way to produce sharp edges is to use blue (=depression) in black (=highground). The "problem" (if you're a maniac trying to create trenches ^^) is that the edges are located within the depressed action-square. So, actually, there is a bit of highground on a depressed square neighbouring highground-squares. Unfortunately, soldiers might position themselves on that very highground within a depressed square. I guess that this also explains why units don't stick to the depression even if you've ordered them to move along depressed squares, but rather run along the edges of highground. CM TRENCHES.btt

@IanL Thanks for your comprehensive reply! Just to adress the most important points: @10e: mg-deployment in foxholes & trenches, also on foxholes in general Silly me. I discovered that MGs (or any crew-handled infantry weapon) can be deployed in foxholes. So of course you're right. There is still a problem though: the MG is placed randomly in one of the four foxholes in the action square. So, in a setting with delicate trenching, this might lead to problems, as I want the MG to be positioned on one side of the action square (e.g. to be able to look just over that parapet). Note that you can achieve this effect (with MG teams) by proper terrain design (and unit-facing) if there are no foxholes on the square. On the plus side, however, even though the positioning of the weapon in the action-square is random, it seems to be consistent (i.e. I can exit and reload the map and still the weapon is on the spot where it has been last time). So, as a scenario-designer, I can make sure the weapon is at the spot I want it to be at the beginning of the battle. During the game, however, the player needs to roll the dice where the weapon is placed. MGs can be deployed in trenches too. Here, however, the gunner will go prone, which means that he is looking straight at the sandbag-wall. A MG that is deployed in a trench (on flat terrain) loses it's LOS and cannot fire to the front. So you need to undeploy/semi-deploy if you want to use your MG in the trench. Another big drawback of foxholes is that you can't conceal troops in them (i.e. put a hedge in front of them). I'm trying to use hedges (can be seen through if troops are adjacent) as a means of camouflage - but I've not got it perfect yet (hedges conflict with "reliable" weapon-positioning in the very same action-square). @11b:only one ammo dump I can only place one. If I buy other dismounted trucks, they simply don't appear on the map when I want to deploy them. -------------- Thanks for the links on tank-battle-positions! I didn't know about "jockeying". Interesting! shoot and scoot .... hehe

Just a quick showcase as I'm too busy with my fieldcraft - will appreciate all the answers tomorrow :). In defence of my attempt to create defensive works via elevation rather than via pre-designed foxholes: doesn't this look nice? The MG team is over-watching the "rampart" of the neighbouring battle position (read my explanation below). On the horizon, you can see the gently rising ground, protecting the neighbouring position from long-range direct fire from the front. This is the concept of the MG-position to be manned by 2 MG teams (one right, one left). The spots are designed so that an MG team can go prone/deploy their weapon here (the random positioning of individual soldiers in the action square doesn't matter) with a good field of view. Towards the enemy, i.e. to the south (1km open field), the position is protected by an earthen rampart/hill. This acts as a protection against heavier weapons (mgs on vehicles, tank guns, autocannons, etc.). In a defence such as in this scenario (lacking long range power yourself), you want to 1. neutralize the enemy tanks' long-range power, and 2. make them come close to kill them off with RPGs. Without such a rampart, any position would get wrecked from 1km distance. The hill forces any vehicle that wants a clear LOS on the position to approach into RPG range. Naturally, the hill comes at the cost of dead ground in front (south) of it. This is where the system comes in: the dead ground is covered by neighbouring fighting positions (and can get additional protection: mines and wire). It's an old but timeless concept. The problem with this approach, and especially on a modern Black-Sea battlefield, is artillery. Basically, artillery can be defeated by "uneven" terrain. So, ideally, my battle position-square is (immediately - flat spaces are dangerous!) surrounded by squares with a higher altitude. Any shells that hit those slightly elevated squares have no effect (shrapnel is flying over my battle position). Initially, I had both positions linked together, but then I opted for two separate positions in order to make direct hits in the flat center less dangerous. I still need to conduct more tests, but the position proved to be okay at first glance [6 minutes of heavy mortar-area-fire (2 tubes): 2 casualties, 6 minutes of medium mortar fire (2 tubes): 2 casualties]. Also, I've put some sandbags into the position to act as an obstacle for shrapnel (no clue if it works lol). Airburst arty, however, immediatly kills everyone in the position. Unfortunately, a 8x8m depression (action square) is not a 2m slit-trench, and also, we have no overhead-protection at all in CM:BS (why did they leave out the pillbox and the bunker?!). I have to keep airburst arty out of the scenario, I'm afraid. The drawback of "uneven", arty-unfriendly terrain is that it opens up new opportunities for direct HE fire. If a HE shell hits the wall behind you (which stands there in order to make arty-shells explode above you), it still explodes into your back. So, in this modern warfare setting with lots of direct HE flying around, it's hard to find the sweetspot between uneven terrain (to offer protection against arty) and being flat (in order not to offer any "hit-explode"-walls to direct HE weapons, and also, to deny any aiming spots to the enemy, lol - this actually is a thing!). Granted, this defensive network looks quite massive. But I guess that's more of an aesthetical issue. If you imagine that these trenches were not 8meters large but 2, it would look less WWI-esque. I think that the concept of this defensive network is pretty valid though. I can't see why it wouldn't work on a modern battlefield (if narrower trenches and overhead protection would provide better cover from (airburst) arty shells). Sure, aircraft is poses a great threat (but then we have no camouflage nets etc either). Also, I suppose that modern equipment is readily available in the current war in the Ukraine. Yet it seems as if trenches are still very much en vogue (judging from youtube videos, of course, and also admitting that the Russian army has not made a concentrated, official effort - but the separatists/freedom fighters certainly have modern equipment). This was a funny incident. In a test, I area-targeted the MG-position-square with the the mg of a BTR. The mg-crew clutched the log I had placed for them and survived the first burst. Funny thing though: their MG got hit and destroyed. I wasn't aware that this was even possible! This game is really astonishing.

11c: Centered craters: I'm not quite sure yet about the ingame implications of craters, but they might have a place in my improvised defensive-positions (in absence of proper foxholes). The problem is that all large craters stick randomly to some corner of a square and you can't change their alignment by deleting/replacing them. So there is no way to place craters as precisely as it is neccessary to use them as foxholes.

As I'm currently working on my first scenario (CM:BS), here are some reflexions, primarily touching on aspects of positioning and defence and the editor. DEFENSIVE POSITIONING Mind you, I think I've stumbled over these "issues" because I am going for a realistic map-scale. It seems to me that most (not all) scenarios for CM games use very condensed (unrealistically crowded, narrow) maps. And I also need to point out that I'm having a blast just trying to design a proper defensive position in the editor. It feels like a game of it's own. Design a defensive position (for frontage X, with only X vehicles/tanks, against enemies x) that actually works. If you play the game in the editor, you can experiment with trenches and positions of all kinds, toying around with elevations. #10a mortars’ hangtime: I really don’t know and I couldn’t find any info on mortar hangtime on the internet. So I wanted to ask: are mortar-hangtimes realistic? I’ve made a test with the Ukrainian mortars on a testing range. The heavy mortar’s hangtime was ca. 30 seconds (at all ranges between 600 and 1000m), the medium mortar’s hangtime was ca. 40 seconds (at all ranges between 200 and 1000m). Needless to say it’s pretty tough to target an attack that is conduceted at vehicle-speed with such a great hangtime - unless of course you put obstacles in their way, hehe! #10b bullet/shell velocity: Also, as my map leads to engagements at greater ranges, I noticed that many weapons’ bullet/shell-velocities are “unaesthetically” slow. MG-bullets have a very arched/round trajectory if fired at 1000m. Bullet drop seems a bit too exaggerated imho. This is an aethestical aspect on the one hand, but on the other hand it does affect gameplay (see 10c/grazing). #10c grazing/reverse slope: Obviously, one of the best positions for a MG is a position in which it can deliver grazing fire, i.e. where the bullets travel at a low height (lower than a man) for long distances. So basically, you should be trying to position your MGs on the same level as a flat plateau. The game’s target-command gives you a good idea: where it says “reverse slope, no aim point”, you’re in grazing mode (your unit cannot see the ground, but anything standing up from it). The bad thing is, however, that you cannot order area fire on grazing spots (“no aim point”), as your troops need to actually see the ground (not “over” the ground) to be allowed to area-fire. Only if you’re lucky, you find a low point somewhere behind the “grazing zone” so that you can still deliver grazing fire (scenario-designers need to keep this in mind!). It would be nice though if we were allowed to area-target “reverse slope no aim point” locations. #10d deployed MG swiveling speed (related to 10e): A problem with MGs in grazing positions: Since their LOS is slightly obscured (overwatching a flat plateau with lots high grass), enemy contacts popped up rather sporadically. Now, the MG had to swivel around to aim at the targets a lot (even if they popped up at only very slight new angles and the distance was excellent at ca. 500m).The problem is that a deployed MG (in prone position) is extremely slow to swivel around because the gunner always crawls to his new position/alignment. So, the MGs ended up with lots of swiveling, but hardly any shooting. I think that this was a bit flawed. MGs needs to swivel around faster and/or get a broader angle at which they’re allowed to fire without the gunner’s repositioning. #10e lack of MG fire platforms (deploy kneeling): A MG cannot be “deployed” in a foxhole or trench or on low walls. ‘Nough said. #10f overall lack of defensive power (fortifications, shoot & scoop): I have to stress this as it is so high on my wish-list. I applaud the very fact that the CM series actually offers fortifications. Yet I still think we need a much greater choice of (effective!) fortifications. Foxholes and trenches that actually offer good protection, overhead protection, proper concealment (fortifications should be part of relative spotting), battle positions for tanks, concertina wire and other road blocks as well as hesco walls (for CM:BS). I also think that shoot-and-scoop (see the big thread) would help the defender a lot. Many times, the problem is that without a shoot-and-scoop command and 1-minute-turn-intervalls, the defender simply cannot escape/prevent return-fire. This is true for vehicles as well as for infantry. (I don’t care if the AI can’t cope with fortifications or shoot & scoop it. Let’s go H2H! :D) EDITOR #11a no acquire command: Contrary to what the manual says, there is no "acquire"-command available in the editor. #11b one ammo crate: You can place only one ammo-crate (dismounted truck) per side. Also, the ammo-crate is not providing AT-equipment (like RPG-rockets in CM:BS)?

Just a little point I've stumbled over (CM:Black Sea, Engine 4): Astonishingly, different kinds of ground-type also seem to influence elevation and the sharpness of terrain-edges. When I used the ditch-lock function (ctrl+click to alter elevation) to create a depression, I noticed that when I filled the depression with "mud", the edges were far less sharp than, e.g. when I used "clover". Mud is no good for trenches. "Dirt" and "hard" works okay, but my impression is that I get the sharpest and most narrow trenches with grass or clover.

I had no problems with the green ones anymore since Veins tracers are much smaller. If you want a different colour, have you tried to simply copy the files of your chosen colour and rename them according to the colour you don't like. E.g. if you want to make all green tracers red: copy the red tracers and give those copied files the names of the green tracers and delete the original green tracers. (Mind you I have not done it myself, but I think it might work...)

Just a minor point: With a little work-around, scenario designers are able to give specific information on enemy locations in individual scenarios (i.e. not emergent as a part of a campaign). They can use "landmarks" (text-labels that can be placed on the map) and set initial recon to "none". True, it doesn't work exactly like suspected contact markers, but it's an interesting idea and it might even be slightly more realistic when it comes to a representation of long-term-recon (as it is primarily used for planning rather than to increase reaction-time of individual units).

Awesome! Thank you! Working like a charm!

@Erwin Yes, this is a good suggestion that would certainly help. The solution does not work for modern titles though (amphibious APCs...). I wonder if there is any plausible impassable terrain for the modern titles. Swamps? @slysniper That's an interesting idea, but I think the implementation would require a very large effort. @RepsolCBR Thanks for clearing that up! Interesting points. Of course it would be much more satisfying if the pre-battle-recon was not random but depended on the actual concealment and quality/experience of the defending troops. From what I've read, quality seems to be a very important factor here - positions are given away by people leaving their position each morning to pee, etc. PS: This might be an interesting watch:

One more thing that came to my mind: #8 Sounds I think almost every veteran CM user uses some kind of sound mod. The good thing about most sound mods out there is that they offer not just better but also much louder fire-sounds than the vanilla game. Now, I'm not an expert on sound in games, so I try to describe the phenomenon in my own words ( ): It seems as if you need to make the sounds very loud (with lots of clipping) if you want to make them work. If you use sounds without clipping at reasonable decibel-levels, the sound's volume will usually be too low in the game. The crux seems to be how quickly distance from the sound-event (so to speak) decreases sound-volume. Would it be possible to make fire-sounds louder over greater distances?

Yes please! Seconded! I don't like green laser shows. Also, it would be great to have a "no tracer" mod - primarily for cinematic AARs :D.

@Erwin The problem I see with larger maps is that it alters the whole scenario. If we use maps that are larger than the size of the forces involved would suggest (as far as I know, formations were assigned sectors according to their size), then instead of a proper attack or assault mission, you'll end up with a skirmish/meeting engagement. So, even though larger maps might help, they change the overall type of engagement. If the map-size is increased while the force-sizes stay the same, then the defender cannot form a defensive line (because he would be spread out too much) but rather has to rely on a flexible ad-hoc defence once he knows the direction of the opponent's main effort. As far as I know, ammo crates can be placed in the editor when you create a scenario, yes. But you cannot buy them as "fortifications" in quickbatlles. Concerning recon: yes, assault missions give the attacker some suspected contacts at the beginning. So there already exists some kind of mechanism. It would be great if this aspect of the game could be fleshed out more. An easy solution would be to give us an option "attacker initial recon" (none/minimal/medium/excellent) in the quickbattle setup. If it doesn't cost any points, players would need to agree on it beforehand (I don't believe that the point-system is really good at creating fair battles anyway ^^ map and time-limit are just as important as forces).

Some thoughts on offence Generally, I see two ways to conduct an offence in Combat Mission games: Charge This is the tactic I tend to use if I have a mobile force (doesn't really work for infantry) and when I need to attack a position that offers some protection to my own troops once I reach it (a charge is no good if you get shot to pieces once you reach the target!). The base idea of the charge is to ignore the recon-aspect that gives the defender the advantage. It's NOT about discovering the enemy to shoot at him - rather, it's about shooting at any likely enemy positions so that the enemy doesn't even get a chance shoot at you. Here is what I do: Where to charge? Choose the "smallest" avenue of approach/charge. The fewer enemy positions get eyes on you during the approach/charge, the better. Assemble: You need to have a secure area where you can assemble your charge-elements, out of the enemy's weapons' reach. Here, you will deploy all the attacking elements in a very concentrated line. I have run charges in which there were no more than perhaps 15-20m in between the vehicles (don't make it too close - they won't be able to move around obstacles and get in the way of each other, etc.). Plan: A movement- and fire-plan is a key component of the charge. Once you have your line ready, you plan the charge-movement by setting waypoints that lead to the target of the charge. On each waypoint, you give target commands. The art of the charge is that your target commands need to cover ALL likely enemy positions ALL the time. This is the reason why we want to attack on a small front (so there are fewer enemy positions that need to be suppressed) and in a very concentrated way (more suppressive potential!). So, when planning, make sure that the target of the charge is well covered by your fire. A charge can go horribly wrong if you fail to cover 1 or 2 enemy positions. If that single position knocks out one of your charge-elements, that charge-element cannot deliver it's suppressive fire, which frees another enemy position. So, there is the risk of a domino-effect. Also, you may want to add some "jokers" to the charge - i.e. units that do NOT get target-commands at their waypoints. These elements are supposed to fire at any unsuspected targets. Word of warning: When planning a charge, keep in mind that weapons need to reload and rotate/aim. E.g. if you're setting waypoints too close to each other (in relation to the speed of the order), your element might not have enough time to aim and shoot in between waypoints. So you need to keep the right balance between waypoint-intervall and movement speed (and rate of fire, obviously). Generally speaking, you want the charge to be very fast, so that you cross the distance to the objective quickly. This limits the time during which things can go wrong and also preserves your ammo. Also, a charge is not the time to preserve ammo. You want to go in with all guns blazing. HE rounds with their high suppression radius are good for this purpose. 4. Coordinated execution: The charge relies on coordination. Ideally, you want all your charge elements pop up at the very same time and move in a perfect line. Never ever show up to the enemy in a piecemeal-manner. A charge can fail or succeed in a matter of seconds. This also makes large charges and long-distance-charges very risky and complicated. I feel comfortable with charges conducted by 4-6 vehicles on a small front (ca. 100-200 m) over distances of ca. 500 meters. Anything larger gets very complicated and risky. Also, you might want to time the start of the charge at the end of a turn, in order to shorten the time until you can give new orders, reacting to the emerging situation. Note that the charge-idea can also be a handy way to move a column of vehicles quickly along e.g. a road in a forest (with potential RPG-threat). Simply have your machine guns blazing left and right (up 200 meters to the front) and race through. Effective enemy ambush positions are very limited in a wood (up to 40m/LOS range left and right into the woods), so suppression works really nicely here. Deliberate attack This is the only real alternative to the charge imho. The defender's advantage is reconnaissance. The attacking elements need to move (making them easier to spot, and giving them a harder time to spot themselves) while the defending elements are stationary (increasing their concealment and spotting-ability). The deliberate attack aims to reduce the defender's recon advantage. How would you do that? By conducting recon yourself. As recon translates 1:1 into time, using this method eats up lots and lots of time. It's a slow and systematical approach, leading to very few casualties if conducted properly. As usual, my advice is to attack on a very small frontage along an easily controllable avenue of approach (the fewer enemy positions, the better). Park your force in a safe space and start recon-ing the avenue of approach. Move small, binolcular-equipped infantry teams (recon vehicles are not suitable for this!!) into concealed observation posts (woods, houses if you move carefully, ridges only if you crest them using a slow command) and have them sit there for a few turns to observe potential enemy positions. Don't rush them. Spotting enemy troops might take a few turns! Also, expect the enemy to be everywhere! Never expose your fighting units to risks (exposing them to positions you have not recon-ed). If you're desperate and ready to risk your scouts, you could try to recon-by-fire (have your scouts open fire at suspected enemy positions briefly). If you spot something, make sure that the scouts communicate their sighting to your force (via C2 links). If you've successfully spotted something, you've gained an advantage over the defender! While your scouting troop is probably still hidden to the enemy (or not, it doesn't really matter), you already know about the position of one of your enemy's fighting elements, while your own fighting elements are still hidden. Now, you can start to attack that enemy element. It's important to understand that you only bring up your battle elements to engage already located enemies. You don't want to scout with (=expose) your battle elements (because usually, battle elements suck at it, being big and noisy, etc.). There needs to be proper cooperation between eyes (infantry) and guns (tanks). I tend to think in terms of concealment more than in terms of protection. Seen from this perspective, I consider my infantry well protected, while my tanks are actually my vulnerable assets. Among your fighting-elements, choose the element that is best suited to knock out the spotted enemy and move it into position. Ideally, you want to pick a position at which your element has a LOS that is very limited to the spotted enemy (keyhole position!). You want to fire at that element only and you don't want to trade casualties! Remember that an element that fires gives away it's position, so make sure no other enemy position has a LOS on your keyhole battle-position! The availability of keyhole-positions also depends on the quality of the defender's layout (number overlapping arcs and axes of fire...). Also, it goes without saying that the approach to the position should be safe (use depressions in the ground, always have a screen between you and the enemy, move slowly in order to reduce noise, etc.). Now, once you have reached your keyhole-position, it should boil down to an isolated, picked duel between the involved elements. The disadvantage that comes from your unit "moving" into position (which might draw the defender's attention) should be countered by the fact that your unit already has a suspected contact marker on the enemy position. To increase your chances for winning the spotting-duel, you might want to un-button your element (the position should be safe anyway!). Also, make sure that the turret is already pointed at the enemy in the moment you're moving into position. You don't want to loose time aiming the gun/rotating the turret. So, ideally, you should be able to get off the first shot. If the target is very tough and your chances to knock it out with one blow are small, you should try to concentrate more units on it (from several keyhole positions or massing more elements at one keyhole position). Just make sure they're all moving into position and firing at the very same moment (slightly gamey, but hey!). If the element is impossible to kill and controls a "gap" in your avenue of approach, a smoke screen might help. If the gap is very small, you might also try to risk to hop over it, i.e. racing across the gap faster than the enemy can take aim and fire (or at least he can only knock out only 1 element). This works best if you're moving laterally to the enemy's orientation. If you need to get a larger force across a gap, move all elements at the same time in a synchronized manner. Hasty helter-skelter attack If you don't want to or simply cannot (time limit, terrain) use any of the methods described above, you have to roll the dice. Four tips: Remember that any suspected contact marker that your scouts produce (and share with other troops) increases your chance to get off the first shot. Concentrate fire power. This is the attacker's main advantage. The defender needs to prepare the defence of the whole frontage. The attacker plans an attack on a tiny, tiny fraction of the frontage (punching through and then expanding the gap), creating massive local imbalances of fire power (see charge). A good attack is one in which the defender cannot fire back (although it makes for crappy cinematic AARs ). NEVER EVER engage in a piecemeal manner. If you have to cross a dangerous ridge, your troops' movement/crossing should be synchronized and fast, limiting the time of exposure. Speed can defeat a badly planned defence (unfortunately though you only find out if the the defence is planned badly by trying out ). As the attacker, distance can be your friend. Simply because the killing chance usually deteriorates with distance. The defender might get off the first shot, but there's a lot of distance in between you, you might survive and react.

Hello, gents! I've been playing again a bit lately. So here we go with more improvement suggestions or rather incentives for interesting discussions: #6: Fortifications I have not mentioned it here yet. It is the single most important point on my wishlist: an overhaul of fortifications (types, camouflage and protection characteristics, price or even concept: a separate budget to buy fortifications?). As I've been playing CM:BS lately, I have been desperately missing road blocks (e.g. tank ditches - right now the only means available to block a road against tracked vehicles are mines...), tank-parapets/fighting positions, proper foxholes and slit trenches, hesco-walls, some kind of additional camouflage (esp. against air attacks), and, very important if you're a defender, some free blast-charges during setup (so that you can blast a hole in some walls/houses to open up covered connections between your positions) and ammo crates. I've read that one major problems seems to be that fortifications need to be set on top of the ground-mesh. I for one wouldn't care too much about the visual appeal as long as fortifications worked properly. Note: I suspect that foxholes should offer very, very good concealment. If this caused any problems to the AI, it would still be great to have two types of foxholes - one type for the AI to aim at in scenarios (reduced concealment), one for pbem h2h battles (full concealment). I'd love to fight against invisible enemies more often. You only know that your return fire is effective once they stop shooting, not by visually seeing the enemy getting hit. So you better keep shooting, maybe they're just suppressed! #7: The edges of the world In my recent games I noticed that the edge of the map is a very valuable tactical element. I think it tends to be very advantageous for the attacker because it provides him with a 100% safe flank during his advance. If he advances along a map-edge, the attacker only needs to suppress/cover positions directly in front and to one flank. This means that an approach on the map-edge very often offers very controllable, small LOS-theaters, suitable for an advance with a small, concentrated force (since there are fewer positions that need to be suppressed). If there was no map-edge, the attacker would need to face many more potential enemy positions and ambush-sites. Generally speaking, I think one would expect the edge of the map be covered by the defender's neighbouring formations. Right now, they're simply not covered at all. Map edges pose no danger to the advancing attacker - they act indeed like a great, impenetrable wall. As the attacker, the map-edge always gives me a feeling of security. I don't know if there is anything one could do against it. One remedy could be not to allow the attacker to move along the edges, so that the edges of the map can be controlled rather easily by the defender (from his deployment zone in the rear though, we don't want to give the defender un-assailable ambush-positions up front). The attacker could of course still fire into the edge-zones, but not move along here to exploit the "great black wall". Have you thought about the tactical implications of map-edges yet? What is your opinion? #8: Engagement types I planned to set up a quick battle in CM:BS and for this reason opened up the maps in the scenario editor. To my surprise I found that the maps come in different variations according to engagement-type (meeting, probe, attack, assault), the victory conditions and the location of the terrain objectives, however, were the same regardless of engagement-type! So, the only difference between engagement-types seems to be the imbalance of force-selections points (and initial recon for the attacker in assault), which surprised me quite a bit. I always was under the impression that the game type would also have an influence over the victory-point-weighting of casualties as opposed to terrain objectives (so that the terrain objectives are much more important than casualties in an assault battle, e.g.) and also the location of the terrain objectives (in a meeting engagement, they're in the center of the map, in an assault engagement, they're deep in the defender's half). #9 Initial Recon Please give us the option to set an initial recon level for the attacker in quickbattles. Having scouts moving up to sit in a bush for 5 minutes trying to spot stuff and then rolling the dice (with the time-limit sitting in your neck) sometimes feels a bit uncomfortable and doesn't really do these recce-troops justice (suicide scout-car, anyone?). It would be great if we had the means to simulate longer-term observation. This would also help to shorten the initial scouting phase (which can be kind of a nuisance in pbem h2h battles). It could be a simple option in the quickbattle-menu, but it could even be something very sophisticated, such as a dedicated scout-outpost-element that the attacker can set up (ahead of his deployment zone) and "use" during his deployment. Once the attacker has positioned it and decided to "use" it (ideally before he positions the rest of his forces), this element would conduct high-chance spot-checks from it's current position, the quality depending on it's experience-level, thereby providing the attacker with suspected contact markers. Once used, the element dissolves (so each element can only be used once/at one position). Maybe sniper elements could be used in this way as well? Maybe there is a chance that the defender also discovers the attacker's scouting effort? The defender would see a scouting marker at the position of the attacker's scouting outpost. From the position and pattern, the defender could draw conclusions on what the attacker might know and what he's planning... (but only at the start of the actual battle, not during deployment phase!).

I support this idea! A conditional command would be very useful. Something along the lines of "stop pause if having fired (1,2 times)" and "bail out and stop pause ..." (for crew-served weapons respectively). Such a command would work quite well, since you could combine it with target-arc-commands (light, AT), and you would be able to plan the evasion-move (and even subsequent moves) yourself. The underlying problem seems to be that in many situations, the turn-interval of 1 minute is uncomfortably large. As reducing the interval would drag out reconnaissance-phases in H2H games even more and probably require a major programing-effort, I think that additional commands that offer us a bit more control over the (re)actions of our troops would be nice and much-needed in order to produce more plausible behaviour. I also want to stress that I'd like to have such an option not only for vehicles, but also for special weapons. If the crew of a recoilless gun notices that the tank they're firing at takes aim at them, then surely they wouldn't keep reloading but "bail out" and run for cover instead. Since it is also related to the problem of turn-intervals, I'd like to point out the need for chaining together several target-briefly commands in one turn. I think that being allowed to assign only 1 area target per minute (unless you do that back-and-forth waypoint-mambo work-around) is an unreasonable restriction. As for the increase in micro-management: I personally don't think that this is an issue. I see Combat Mission games as very detailed simulations and any scenario above company-level is a no-go for me anyways. But of course, that's my personal preference. Once we have the proper means to ambush our opponents (without eating all the return fire), all that's missing for CM to become the ultimate game-series is a major overhaul of fortifications. (vehicle-parapets, proper foxholes, revamp of protection and recon-values, point costs per engagement-type, etc.). I wouldn't care too much about the visual/eye-candy aspects as long as fortifications stay hidden from the enemy's sight (stuff sinking into the ground...). With some camouflage and branches and twigs added, plus a gentle slope, I think that the uglyness-factor of foxholes that are built "on top" of the ground-mesh (rather than dug down into it) is not that bad? Especially considering that fortifications should be a major game aspect. PS: And a way to prevent troops from proning/kneeling. FO-teams that decide to go prone and lose LOS on their target can be quite a game-breaker.

You're indeed making a very interesting point. Theoretically, you can also win if you make the attacker suffer too many casualties while he takes the objective as most scenarios also award points for exceeding enemy casualty thresholds. But I think it's true adn also quite realistic that the time limit is more important in most cases. I always make myself believe that it represents a time in which the force under attack informs it's superior about the attack and waits either for the order to fall back or to hold out until reinforcements arrive. I'm still a newbie when it comes to playing multiplayer CM-games (this is going to change very soon! ) . What I've been doing quite a few times, however, is setting up hotseat-games in which I played both sides - attacker and defender (does this make me a nerd amongst the nerds? :D). And this helped me learn a lot - especially on the defender's side since the AI is not that good on the attack. One of things I learned is that if you force the enemy to "deploy" (i.e. get all his units in position to take a certain terrain feature) early on, you can win a lot of time. Multiple weak lines of resistance, defence in depth, seems to do a better job than a single strong line of resistance (but of course lots of other factors come in here...). However, on quite a lot of maps, I run into the problem that the terrain does not allow the defender a lot of movement, which makes defence in depth a bit dangerous (in terms of casualties at least). Withdrawing one of your lines of resistance is often not possible because there are enemy firing-lines all over it's path of retreat. Or perhaps I'm just withdrawing too late and/or not adequately covering the retreat with support/suppressive fire. This reminds me that I wanted to test whether trenches could prove usefull here: I'd not set them up at the front line, but rather in a way so that the trenches would cover my troops' movements between positions. But I fear that the point-cost of all those trenches might just be too high and the attacker might also use them to his advantage. ------------------------------------------ If there was but one eyecandy-suggestion I could make, it would be this: When zooming in (using the "binoculars"), the game should increase the graphic-detail-level of the things I'm looking at. Right now, the graphics do not adjust, so if you're looking at things that are far away, the models and the terrain looks very bleak and terrain-shadows flicker a lot. Granted, this is a purely cosmetical suggestion. But it would make video-AARs more pretty to look at.

Interesting video! In addition the movie mentioned the number of wheels. It states that the weight "passed on" by a wheel is mainly beared by but 2 track-links (I assume the size of the wheels and the track-links matters here too). The Sherma's performance was so poor because it had only 6 comparatively small wheels with lots of space in between them, so that the the whole weight of the tank was concentrated on rather small points rather than over the whole track. The panther, on the other hand, had 8 quite large wheels with hardly any space in between so that the weight of the tank was distributed more evenly over the whole length of the track / on a larger number of track-links. I guess the T-34 would have been somewhere in the middle? It has but 5 wheels per side, but these are rather large and there is not a lot of space in between them. Good to know! I was also thinking that this refered to offroad-speed, not offroad-reliability/bogging chance.

@snarre: Oh wow, thanks! This is something I wasn't aware of! Now that you said it, I've looked it up in the manual (p. 54): "Anti-tank guns that are deployed in the Setup Phase and do not move or rotate are harder for the enemy to spot!" Though I wonder if aiming the gun counts as "rotating". @IanL: Thanks for clearing that up! @MOS:96B2P: Thanks to you as well for the information on motivation. Concerning time-limits, it's good to know that I'm not the only one who misses out on points because I don't push forward fast enough. I think I also have to do some self-criticism here because the best means for gaining ground fast seems to be proper planning. If your assault gun is on the wrong flank of the battlefield when you need it, you loose time. If your platton leader is calling in the battalion's arty instead of your FO team, you loose time. If your spotter can't see the spotting rounds, you loose time. etc. etc. So it's really a mixture of very tough time-limits (at times unrealistic limits, unless you play "blindly" or already know where the enemy is) and my incompetence.

MOS:96BTP! Thanks for your comprehensive answer! My first question was: What is the benefit of suspected contact markers (in terms of game-mechanics)? Do units get an increased chance for spotting something at places where they allready have a suspected contact marker? As for Iron difficulty, I was under the impression that the whole "you need to spot friendly troops too"-thing was merely for additional immersion, without any mechanical aspect to it? Do you think that a unit gains some kind of moral bonus if it is aware of friendly troops close by? Also, it's interesting that you suggest that units' morale is influenced by enemy (suspected/confirmed) contacts (within a certain range). I always believed it was just a matter of the volume of incoming fire and casualties suffered. Regarding my second question, if I understand your answer correctly, then only the command link to it's immediate direct superior matters for a fighting unit in terms of morale? Command links to indirect superiors further above only matter in terms of information-sharing. Thanks for clearing up the numbers for me! So our hypothesis is that leader-quality affects the unit's accuracy of fire (so it's not that important for higher echelons/HQs...) and bogging chances. The motivational modifier is actually a permanent stat representing the unit's base morale/motivation - in contrast to the morale status that displays the current morale level of the unit. arpella72 I am a big fan of defensive structures as well and even though the current selection is not bad at all, I'd like to see some improvements or additions here. I'd love to see tank-parapets (I don't know how they're called properly... earth covering 3 of the 4 sides of the tank) and additional camouflage options. You could buy additional camouflage (as a fortification type) and fit it on vehicles or emplaced heavy weapons if they're positioned in the appropriate terrain (woods, scrubs). They would loose this camouflage if they moved. It would serve to make them harder to spot (and swirl up less dust when firing). My heart bleeds when I discover that a defender's AT-gun is easily spotted after only one round fired - this might also be related to the overall rather short engagement distances though. Also, what about anti-tank-ditches? -------------------------------- Now, I seem to be a very, very defensive/cautious player, so maybe it's just my personal problem, but still I wanted to ask: Do you guys have troubles with time-limits too? Apart from role-playing communications (which renders the time-limits of most scenarios totally unrealistic), I regularly run into troubles if there is a lot of rough terrain or urban terrain on the battlefield. I mean I ususally try to advance cautiously and carefully, scouting positions and routes of approachment before I move troops, checking all possible lines of fire. This, however, means that it might very well take me 1 hour or more to move through a single block of houses. I think that's actually pretty realistic. But the time-limits of many scenarios demand a much faster approach, forcing me to take risks and roll the dice all the time. When I run into a mission and I am supposed to advance my troops 2 kilometers through densely wooded terrain and capture a village at the end, and the time limit says: 1h 30min I usually drop out - no way! If I have lots of armour, I can at least deal with woods - just form up two parallell columns and drive through, MGs blasting non-stop right and left. But this tends to funnel my armour onto a single route of approach. So I guess I have to hope for longer scenarios with a balance slightly more in favour for preserving one's troops over reaching an objective area. Or I could try to edit existing scenarios. More and/or more accurate pre-game intel for scenarios would also help a lot. With less terrain-crowded battlefields, it's much more relaxing to play. The level of claustrophobia and time-consuming scouting (and rather annoying boring clicking that comes with it) is reduced because errors do not immediatly lead to burning tanks. If distances are more generous, you're more likely to survive unforeseen initial contact. With the ambush ranges that seem to be dominating in CM-scenarios, you're knocked out immediatly though.

Another thing I was wondering about is the effect of established or broken communication lines: The manual explains very well how communication links can be established* and how they're displayed. The effects of command links, however, are not very well documented. So apparently, there are two effects: Shared information about enemy contacts: How information-sharing works has been very well explained by MOS's guide. The advantage of having suspected contact markers for your troops is not entirely clear to me though. From my observations, units get some kind of bonus for spotting (and thereby confirming) a suspected contact marker, but I'm not sure. The manual also states that command links affect morale, but no details are given. Here is a quote (p.64) - it's nicely written, but cryptic in terms of actual explanation: I've fiddled around with command links during a deployment phase and I have not seen the morale-status of any unit change because of broken or established command links. On the other hand, this was at the start of the game and all troops were at their maximum morale level. So I suppose communication and control might matter more once things are actually getting hot? Does anyone have clear information on this topic? Also, I wonder: does it negatively affect a platoon if the communication to the platoon leader is intact, but the link to the coy or bat. is broken? I often delete battalion leaders when selecting my troops (because I tend to play smaller battles...). ---------------------------------- This also makes me wonder about the effect of a unit's leadership-modifier and the effect of a unit's current morale-level. Questions, questions, questions. All these things are not stated clearly in the manual ("The better the modifier, the more effective the Leader is in keeping things on the straight and narrow." - aha ). Does leader-quality affect how fast the unit gets pinned down under fire? Or how long it takes a pinned unit to drop a level of morale? Or how fast a unit on low morale decides to retreat? Or perhaps does it even affect the accuracy of a unit's fire? Or does it indeed affect the cohesion of the unit - i.e. how fast everyone is at their position in the action square that the unit is moving to? And what is the morale-modifier supposed to tell me? * The information that communication via WWII manpack-radios breaks down if the radio-operator is moving is missing though.

Hello! Thanks for all the feedback by the veterans! It's really good to see a forum that is alive! @ Truck-problem: Indeed the crew bailed out when the truck got stuck without me ordering them to do so. The game was still played on engine version 3. @ Advancing in the cover of tanks: Thanks for the information, MOS:96B2P! I didn't know that friendly fire can pass through friendly tanks! You're correct that advancing in the trails of a tank is not a very safe approach, but still I found that in some cases, it seemed to be a rather reasonable thing to do (nothing but enemy small arm weapons around, all of their fire coming from the front, not at odd angles; no alternatives in terms of cover). In fact I've even seen this "tactic" in actual footage of the war in Syria, although here the conditions seemed totally inappropriate (tank + infantry were entering a city...) so I guess that this kind of bunching up behind a tank was more of a psychological thing. --------------------------- Here is a brand new (Red Thunder) AAR of a quickbattle against the AI: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bcz9yMJfsnI&feature=youtu.be Against a human opponent, I think this map should be rated as an assault-map rather than an attack-map. The attacker needs to cross a river which can be controlled by very good positions (village, woods) and once the attacker manages to cross, he still has to overcome a few ridges (my worst enemy!).

MOS:96B2P! Maybe it was a unique bug in my game. Here is a video of it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ueZJ2DkzHBY&feature=youtu.be . I guess I should try to recreate the problem to investigate further. Taking cover behind tanks? I wonder if you guys ever came into situations in which you were trying to make your infantry advance (or retreat) in the cover of their own tanks? Even with smaller teams (teams that fit into a single action square), I'm having troubles to keep them close enough to the tanks and coordinate the movement of tanks and infantry accordingly. I wonder if this can be tackled somehow? Especially now that peeking around (tank? :D)-corners has become a real?

Thanks, Panzer Pajamas! I know your name from youtube-videos! There is an issue I just came across which effectively halted my left flank ( ) : One of my squads was not able to mount a truck that had been immobilized in the terrain (the squad was small enough to fit in). Why would you want to mount a truck that got stuck you ask? The squad's task was supposed to take the ammo from the truck and carry it over to their depleted platoon. You need to get on the vehicle in order to unlock the acquire command. So my suggestion is to allow troops to mount immobilized vehicles.