BATTLE DRILL - A CM Tactics Blog

[BLSTK]

@ Marka

Nice synopsis. Thanks for doing the legwork.

@ Bil

Thanks for doing the between-the-ears-work.

[markshot]

Dead of Night

 

Well, I have tried not splitting into recon teams for this one.  Keeping my squads close and in command with one hunting.

 

A recon team stumbles onto a fortified enemy team and it is a fair firefight; deaths are fairly balanced.  A squad stumbles onto an enemy team backed up by two other squads in support and it is not a fair fight at all.  No one dies and the enemy team is eliminated.  Also, I am covering ground faster; as it is very slow (lots of waypoints and pauses with more teams) versus longer waypoints and squads.

[Bil Hardenberger]

Bil:

I just read through all the posts in Tactical Problems, and put together an brief outline that summarizes the major points.  If it is OK with you, I'd like to make it available here for anyone who is interested.

TacticalProblems.CMBN.txt

Sure you can pass that around. Not sure it's more helpful than the blog which has images and is itemized. But still might be a help to others so thanks for putting this together.

Bil

[marka]

Sure you can pass that around. Not sure it's more helpful than the blog which has images and is itemized. But still might be a help to others so thanks for putting this together.

Bil

Thanks for the support.  When I am learning a complex, new topic, I find it helpful to have a short summary on hand for reference.  Thank you for the blog posts, BTW.

[Bil Hardenberger]

It has been a while, but I have added a post to my blog: TANK TACTICS: Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand! - ANNOTATED which I hope you will find interesting and helpful.

Panzer Vorwärts! Aber mit Verstand! or Armor Forward! But with intelligence! has been freely circulated around the net for years, but I thought it was worth a close look and a comparison with how each of the points it outlines applies to the WW2 Combat Mission games.

Enjoy! 

[Bud Backer]

I like the comments you added to each point, Bil. They provide context and make them clearer. 

[markshot]

Howdy, Bil,

I must say that the new CMx2 makes me feel stupid.  I find myself frequently replaying missions.  I didn't use to with CMBB/CMAK and mostly won.  I hope one day I shall be able to do that with CMx2.

The one thing I always wonder about with these games is ABC is the most realistic engine ever produced.  There I go; doing okay.  But then XYZ is released and is the most realistic ever produced, and I am an idiot again.  At what point does realism = real?  (and if not my body, but my intellect is up for this)

Good hunting!

[Bulletpoint]

Howdy, Bil,

I must say that the new CMx2 makes me feel stupid.  I find myself frequently replaying missions.  I didn't use to with CMBB/CMAK and mostly won.  I hope one day I shall be able to do that with CMx2.

The one thing I always wonder about with these games is ABC is the most realistic engine ever produced.  There I go; doing okay.  But then XYZ is released and is the most realistic ever produced, and I am an idiot again.  At what point does realism = real?  (and if not my body, but my intellect is up for this)

Good hunting!

Wow, I never thought I would see anyone complain that this series develops too fast  As far as I can count, the "new CMx2 engine" is now nine years old...

(with some tweaks and updates along the way)

[Michael Emrys]

Perhaps markshot has been absent from the game for that long...? And after all, the jump from CMx1 to x2 is a pretty big one that gave a lot of people trouble. I know it did me. There were times I almost despaired of getting the hang of it. And the phrase "steep learning curve" was heard abroad in the land for many months.

Michael

Edited March 20, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[Bulletpoint]

Perhaps markshot has been absent from the game for that long...? And after all, the jump from CMx1 to x2 is a pretty big one that gave a lot of people trouble. I know it did me. There were times I almost despaired of getting the hang of it. And the phrase "steep learning curve" was heard abroad in the land for many months.

Michael

Definitely a difficult game. I've been playing for some years now, and I still learn new tricks now and then. To me, that's a big part of the fun. About Markshot's comment, I just thought it was amusing that he called the Cmx2 engine new...

[General Jack Ripper]

"Pretty big"? More like HUGE! It took me about three solid months just to lean that splitting squads reduces casualties, instead of merely reducing your 'Firepower' number by half. Especially with the first CMx2 title set in a modern, highly lethal battlefield, with laser guided bombs, and heat seeking missiles, it was one heck of a transition!

[markshot]

Well, "new" more as in new to me.

I had got my last my PC in 2007 and continued on and off with CMBB/CMAK until last year when I replaced that computer.  I now own CMBN/CMFI/CMRT (+DLCs).

I am playing on IRON and I am still learning.

Also, somethings are just the usual result of engine upgrades without retesting/balancing all scenarios.

Like I have been banging my head on CMFI - Kiwi Soldiers only to search and find out that it is one of the hardest and that engine upgrades may have made it even harder.

Edited March 21, 2016 by markshot

[Tempestzzzz]

"2. No armored attack is so urgent, even under the most pressing situation, that you do not have time to inform subordinate leaders of the tactical situation, mission objectives, and technical and logistical factors of the impending action. Impetuous action on your part can result in unnecessary loss of men and materials and place the success of the mission in jeopardy.

-----From Panzer -Warts

 

Which is why some scenarios I open up in my Scenario Editor and give them more time.

[markshot]

That scenario would not have been helped by time only something heavy like the main gun of a tank.

Also, luck was a serious element.  Perhaps, 1 of 10 runs massed Brens on the 2nd floor might have achieved the needed kills.

Here is something that drives me crazy!!!

You cannot tell you per man so human behaving squad with the action squares:  DON'T GO THERE; THEY WILL SEE YOU; SHOOT YOU; AND KILL YOU!!!  Invariably, these guys just love to scurry about and cover all angles; especially those where someone is waiting to put a bullet through them.

Now, you say, the omniscient I (player) knows that.  Well, if you are an AI simulation and you see a body bleeding out in a certain spot that was in good health the previous turn, what does that tell you about that spot?  Yes, I like the new game, and all the human like behavior, but it is not very human like go stroll over to you buddy who is spurting blood like it cannot happen to you.

[markshot]

Bil (and others),

Okay, it is highly recommended to send out scout teams using the HUNT command with waypoints and pauses.

However, they halt and cancel HUNT as soon an enemy is known anywhere to them.  In CMBB/CMAK, there was an ADVANCE-TO-CONTACT.  Is this the same thing?  Do I need to give them a covered arc so that they ignore distant contacts and keep HUNTing?

Thanks!

PS:  Right now, I am just having the scouts go QUICK in short hops.

[A Canadian Cat]

Adding a covered arc is one possible way to go. Or you could switch to quick with pauses instead. I often use a combination: quick for a few bounds followed by a hunt bound. 

[JSj]

On 3/20/2016 at 1:11 PM, markshot said:

Here is something that drives me crazy!!!

You cannot tell you per man so human behaving squad with the action squares:  DON'T GO THERE; THEY WILL SEE YOU; SHOOT YOU; AND KILL YOU!!!  Invariably, these guys just love to scurry about and cover all angles; especially those where someone is waiting to put a bullet through them.

Now, you say, the omniscient I (player) knows that.  Well, if you are an AI simulation and you see a body bleeding out in a certain spot that was in good health the previous turn, what does that tell you about that spot?  Yes, I like the new game, and all the human like behavior, but it is not very human like go stroll over to you buddy who is spurting blood like it cannot happen to you.

I would recommend that you look at this situation differently. Whenever one of your units moves, other units should be on overwatch, ready to engage any enemy that shoots at your moving unit. In this case, after you take a casualty, your overwatching units will open fire and kill or suppress the enemy, and therefore the soldier going up to the casualty will be able to give first aid without also being shot.

Now, we all make mistakes, of course, so this ideal situation will not always happen. There are always going to be times when we take casualties, and there is no overwatching unit with line of sight and line of fire that can shoot back at the enemy. But instead of letting this drive you crazy, analyze the situation, and figure out what you did wrong. How could you have avoided the extra casualties, where should you have placed overwatching units that could have avoided this situation? Look at this as a learning experience, instead of a frustrating problem with the game mechanics.

[Michael Emrys]

5 hours ago, IanL said:

I often use a combination: quick for a few bounds followed by a hunt bound. 

This is what I am coming around to in some situations. Formerly, I would use Quick bounds only and avoided using Hunt due to its being so tiring for the men. But now I am thinking that its heightened awareness and the fact that they get several seconds at the end of plotted movement to catch their breath can work out okay. And having them cautiously approach a possibly dangerous location makes sense. In situations where I am almost certain that they will draw fire, I have them Quick move for the first part of the turn, then have them Hunt for an AS or two, and then use Slow to enter the last AS. And just to be sure, I may also give them a Hide command at the last WP to last until the start of the next turn, in case an enemy unit might have been looking their direction and have caught some movement, causing them to send a few rounds downrange "just in case".

Michael

Edited May 23, 2016 by Michael Emrys

[markshot]

Thanks for the tips.

Actually I used to combined MOVE-TO-CONTACT and ADVANCE in CMBB/CMAK.  Mainly before leaving cover; they would halt in cover.  I am thinking the ability to now set covered arcs on a waypoint basis might come in handy.

However, as far as I can tell, there is no way to clear a standing order on waypoint, only modify it.  Like you could not cancel a covered arc or would a FACING do that?

[Michael Emrys]

3 hours ago, markshot said:

Like you could not cancel a covered arc...?

Hmmm. I have never had occasion to cancel a covered arc  at the last WP of a movement command, but for units that have already completed their movement the previous turn, The Clear Target command always works. You might try that and see if it works in the circumstance you describe.

Michael

[womble]

The manipulation of Target Arcs is an important part of scouting, I think. At least in terms of "trying to see things without being seen (or at least shot too much) yourself."

Quick, Hunt and Slow all have their place in movement, and Pauses at waypoints.

Target Arcs are important because the most visible thing any element does, pretty much, is firing, so you don't want your "trying to escape notice" elements to be shooting at anything unless it's absolutely necessary. So scouts, in my SOP, get a circular "self-defense" Target Arc. In the open, that tends to be about 100m, but as they approach sight-blocking obstacles, the radius gets reduced so that the arc just covers immediately beyond it, in order to be able to respond to defenders lying in wait, but to prevent the unit engaging stuff seen much past the blockage. The waypoint before last, which is usually the start of a Slow leg, they get a very short TA, because I don't want them to shoot at anything while they're at their most exposed, visually, unless it's a matter of "shoot or get grenaded". My SOP for all units getting into action positions is to put a short wedge-shaped TA on the last waypoint to make sure they are oriented as I intend them, and that they maintain fire discipline. This isn't usually necessary, per se for scouting elements or rifle teams, since they don't have crew-served weapons that need to be placed somewhere they can shoot, and the "before crawl" TA will suffice. Sometimes (very rarely for scouts) I'll want them to open up as soon as they're on the firing step, so I'll give a Target, Target Briefly or a Face order to set them "weapons free".

So, markshot: yes, setting TAs (and Target) on waypoints is a key tool for you to use, and Face will, indeed, cancel a pre-existing TA, or other Targeting order, though, IMO, it's not something you'd want to do very often with scouts in particular.

[markshot]

Interesting.

I usually use covered arcs on HQs (very tight).  I want them up and looking.  Also, I find that they command better not hiding.  But I don't want them drawing attention to themselves by firing.

[womble]

Aye. HQs shouldn't be Hiding. I give mine "self defense" TAs, so they can fire back if something unexpected pops up. Also, if they're backing up a rush to a new position, they'll have the same coverage everyone else has, just a bit further back than the first line to hit the new cover. It's rare that I need them to have a really tight TA, because they're not often going to be within a few 10s of metre of enemy, and if they are, then their firepower might be helpful...

[Michael Emrys]

7 hours ago, womble said:

Aye. HQs shouldn't be Hiding. I give mine "self defense" TAs, so they can fire back if something unexpected pops up. Also, if they're backing up a rush to a new position, they'll have the same coverage everyone else has, just a bit further back than the first line to hit the new cover. It's rare that I need them to have a really tight TA, because they're not often going to be within a few 10s of metre of enemy, and if they are, then their firepower might be helpful...

Same here. I try to keep them close enough to the front so that all their sub-units are in command, but back far enough so that they are not likely to be drawing fire.

Michael

[MOS:96B2P]

On 5/24/2016 at 6:46 AM, markshot said:

<Snip> I usually use covered arcs on HQs (very tight).  I want them up and looking.  Also, I find that they command better not hiding.  But I don't want them drawing attention to themselves by firing.

 

On 5/24/2016 at 8:03 AM, womble said:

<Snip>  HQs shouldn't be Hiding. I give mine "self defense" TAs, so they can fire back if something unexpected pops up. <Snip> 

 

On 5/24/2016 at 3:48 PM, Michael Emrys said:

Same here. I try to keep them close enough to the front so that all their sub-units are in command, but back far enough so that they are not likely to be drawing fire.

Michael

In the WWII titles I have found it useful to give platoon HQ's a 50 meter 360^o Target Arc. (100 meters across)   This serves the purpose of keeping the HQ from firing at far off targets and drawing return fire.  But it is also a visual reminder of the automatic C2 voice distance.  I attempt, with a few exceptions, to make this the area of operations for the fire teams of the platoon.  I will especially keep the forward (in-contact) fire teams in this arc.  The reserve squad, teams giving medic aid, 60mm mortar etc may fall a short distance behind this arc and are called forward when needed.  My self defense arc for Company HQs & Forward Observers is 32 meters.    

In CMBS with the communications  gear that is present I am still experimenting with the target/command arc concept.  It is not needed as much for C2 but I still like a defined area of operations for my platoons.    

Just FYI reference the Hide command.  It will reduce the automatic 50 meter voice C2 to about 16 - 20 meters.