I need some help

[GLynn41]

I have a new Cputer-- so far it will run any size CM game-- my problem is that when you have a large battle field --dozens of armor pieces -- 100's of men -- I get lost-all I seem to do is run around trying to maintain C&C- so for me it is more fun with smaller size battles-- so how can i improve the ability to handle the larger battles--

[z1812]

Are you playing RT or Wego. Many players use RT for smaller battles and Wego for for the larger battles.

[kevinkin]

Personally, CM shines at the company level. With experience, either RT and WEGO are perfectly playable allowing the player to enjoy the the graphics. For larger battles, divide the scenario time into discrete segments. On the attack, use phase lines that you need to obtain. On defense, plan retrograde lines that will ensure you hold your objectives and maintain a reserve. Large scenarios require a lot of pre-planning  since the maps are larger and once you place units in motion they are committed - especially in close terrain along wood line road networks. For large missions I think in terms of  Panzer Leader not Squad Leader.

Oh man, I am old.      

Kevin 

 

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, GLynn41 said:

I have a new Cputer-- so far it will run any size CM game-- my problem is that when you have a large battle field --dozens of armor pieces -- 100's of men -- I get lost-all I seem to do is run around trying to maintain C&C- so for me it is more fun with smaller size battles-- so how can i improve the ability to handle the larger battles--

Also understand that it takes practice - in real life, commanders don't immediately get let loose on a battalion. They go through training before they get let loose on a platoon (closely supervised by the platoon sergeant) before commanding a specialist platoon and doing more training/staff appointments before they command a company after which they will go through more training before commanding a battalion.

I've been playing this game for years and have spent 32 years (and still going strong) in the Army and, while I can handle a battalion (in CM), it still takes a lot of careful planning and thought to pull it off well.

[George MC]

7 hours ago, GLynn41 said:

I have a new Cputer-- so far it will run any size CM game-- my problem is that when you have a large battle field --dozens of armor pieces -- 100's of men -- I get lost-all I seem to do is run around trying to maintain C&C- so for me it is more fun with smaller size battles-- so how can i improve the ability to handle the larger battles--

As @Combatintman concisely explains before you have to learn basic drills/develop your now SOPS at different tactical levels.

5 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Also understand that it takes practice - in real life, commanders don't immediately get let loose on a battalion. They go through training before they get let loose on a platoon (closely supervised by the platoon sergeant) before commanding a specialist platoon and doing more training/staff appointments before they command a company after which they will go through more training before commanding a battalion.

I've been playing this game for years and have spent 32 years (and still going strong) in the Army and, while I can handle a battalion (in CM), it still takes a lot of careful planning and thought to pull it off well.

In Combat Mission terms and as others have mentioned above keep playing company level QBs to work out basic drills (for both armour and infantry). @Bill Hardenberger has produced an excellent series of battle drills aimed at the Combat Mission player. They'll give you some food for thought (and practice) as to developing your versions of these drills and how they apply at different tactical levels.

http://battledrill.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/combat-mission-tactical-problems-cmtp.html

Essentially a battalion level combat mission scenario will likely involve a series of different actions "going on" from units in attack, to those providing overwatch, to those travelling tactically into new positions etc etc. Stands to reason you have to know the basics well.

Specifically to large actions what I do is ensure my force stays command and control intact i.e. maintain platoon/company cohesion ensuring the CC and links are maintained. This helps for jumping back and forward to platoons via the company HQ. If everyone is spread all over - that becomes more confusing!

In a battalion level action not everyone has to attack at the same place at the same time. I tend to assign units as scouts (who are small light units - maybe even just a few guys in softskin vehicles or a couple of tanks) to probe ahead - this works better if you can have hidden "eyes on" your scouts to see what is going to cut them down/blow them up...

Then the vanguard (maybe around reinforced platoon size or reduced company) they'll often be following the scouts up to support/blow through anything they encounter, if opposition too strong, they go into firing positions till I work out what I'm facing before, if required I bring up the main body - which is my heavy punching unit. Travelling back as a mobile reserve is the rear guard.

In reality this organisation is mirrored at the different levels usually - but all depends on terrain.

What I like about large scenarios is I'm still working on perfecting this. I love the complexity and demands these large scenarios place on the player you have to be a jack of all trades and have a good handle on how CC and works to make this work effectively.

Enjoy the journey

[nik mond]

After the recon and once you have a strategy figured out.

With a large force avoid falling into the trap of just sending a piece of it forward to do the fighting while leaving the remainder in the rear. Only to be committed when the initial detachment is wiped out. The cycle will repeat and you will lose.

Every unit whether divided into companies platoons or sections should be going somewhere doing something while providing some degree of mutually supporting overwatch to the adjacent sections you control. If playing in real-time this will involve a lot of pausing and surveying what's going on from one side of the map to the other and adjusting your unit orders to the changing situation.

 

 

 

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

This sounds like it could be a really interesting discussion. I like the advice from those first here - solid.

Here is what I noticed as I played more and more: you can think of a large battle as a number of smaller actions. Clearly, you do need to maintain a big picture and execute your tactical leadership with the full context and all your forces working together at a higher level like @Combatintman and @nik mond pointed. What I noticed was that you start to see a pattern emerge of smaller actions playing out in different parts of the map. So, when I play a game with large forces I execute a larger tactical plan to allocate forces and coordinate them but as my men make contact I notice the different smaller actions. Then when I play a turn I typically spend a minute just watching everything at a high level. Watching my forces manoeuvre and seeing where new fights break out. Then I already know where the areas of action have been in previous turns so I have a set number of places where I zoom in and watch the minute from a much lower level. I do this multiple times adding new areas as needed and stopping in others. Then once I have essentially watched the equivalent of 2-5 smaller battles I hit the BRB and start planning, from the same perspective. So, looking at each smaller fight I spend time (as the Platoon commander(s)) and give good orders like I would for a smaller battle. Rinse and repeat for all the identified areas. Then (or back and forth) I think about the big picture and adjust the higher level plan by moving resources to support who needs it and slow or speed up the pace of my manoeuvring.

In the end I am really playing a variable number of smaller engagements and I try to treat it as such so that ever unit gets the needed level of attention.

[GLynn41]

I will try to use your suggestions. thanks again thanks for the thoughts-- I did see the larger battles as  a number of smaller ones-- and I try make a couple battle groups to contain and use the forces-- -- -- I have been using CM since it was CM by big time software -- not planning on stopping any time soon--   thanks again

[Buzz]

Thanks GLynn41 for asking a question I am sure many ponder. Great advice given by experienced players / designers above. Thank you all.

I prefer RT play but beyond Company level WeGo works better for me to keep things organized and clear. RT"commanding a battalion" is (IMO) too chopped up with micro pausing for me to get the best understanding of what needs attention and what is developing.

As IanL noted, watching the turn at high level and replaying at lower level for action areas helps a lot. I even keep a sheet of paper on a clipboard and a pencil (old school) next to the keyboard to make notes of what needs to be done for the next move. 

Since you have years of CM play time, you already know "commanding a battalion" in CM is not a quick afternoon game. Pace yourself and as George says "Enjoy the journey " and have fun .

Buzz

[Combatintman]

Sorry - I forgot to shamelessly plug my planning tutorial in my last post ...

 

[GLynn41]

BTW as to the question before- I usually play RT-- but that is with the smaller scenarios --until it was asked I realized that I tended to play wego in the CMBS battles with the larger battles-- so I will in CMRT and CMBN /CW also-- again thanks for the answers  and encouragement -- the fun you were having was easily seen in your answers  and that is nice

 

 

[HUSKER2142]

I have a question for developers. How does AI logic work when and what kind of projectile should be charged. My ZIS-2 anti-tank gun refuses to shoot sub-caliber projectiles when it's needed. The purpose of the tank "TIGR" located front armor at a distance of 890 meters. Do not you think you can make it possible for players to choose which shells to shoot forcibly?

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

I have a question for developers. How does AI logic work when and what kind of projectile should be charged.

With a little magic . While in real life the crew would guess at what type of ammo they might need and have it ready in the breach.  For example if they thought they would need HE because they were supporting infantry and didn't expect enemy tanks but an enemy tank appeared, they would fire the HE and reload AP because it is faster to fire a round than it is to take it out. In the game the round in the breach is magically whatever the tank crew decides they way to fire.

As for the TacAI deciding which round it is pretty clear between HE and AP. Infantry and soft vehicles get HE, tanks and armoured vehicles get AP. Where it get sticky is with the special AP ammo. Should the crew use their better ammo on this target or hold it for a worse threat that might come in the future. I have no idea how that actual decision gets done.

 

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

My ZIS-2 anti-tank gun refuses to shoot sub-caliber projectiles when it's needed. The purpose of the tank "TIGR" located front armor at a distance of 890 meters.

I'm not sure what you mean by sub-caliber projectiles in this case. Am I missing something about that gun - aren't all their round the same calibre?

 

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

Do not you think you can make it possible for players to choose which shells to shoot forcibly?

No. I see the appeal and for some people it would be fun. The down side is the increase in management that would produce. I don't want to spend my game time picking ammo types for units to fire. I am not alone. Having said that if a crew of a weapons system is making a poor choice repeatedly it is something that BFC can tweak. Anything to make the TacAI better.

[JoMac]

On 4/20/2017 at 7:18 PM, GLynn41 said:

I have a new Cputer-- so far it will run any size CM game-- my problem is that when you have a large battle field --dozens of armor pieces -- 100's of men -- I get lost-all I seem to do is run around trying to maintain C&C- so for me it is more fun with smaller size battles-- so how can i improve the ability to handle the larger battles--

You Don't !...Just stick with up to Reinforced Company size engagements, and you will be fine.

Joe

[HUSKER2142]

37 minutes ago, IanL said:

I'm not sure what you mean by sub-caliber projectiles in this case. Am I missing something about that gun - aren't all their round the same calibre?

I apologize for the translation, I meant APCR .

[A Canadian Cat]

3 hours ago, HUSKER2142 said:

I apologize for the translation, I meant APCR .

Got it. No problem.

I don't know how it decides when to fire AP or APCR. That decision is unknown to me. Mostly because I have not paid a lot of attention to it. Perhaps someone else can shed some light.

[Vanir Ausf B]

The AI in Combat Mission is overly attached to silver bullets, in my opinion. It's not really a bug because it's intentional, but I will log another complaint about it.

[Ultradave]

On 4/20/2017 at 8:58 PM, Combatintman said:

Also understand that it takes practice - in real life, commanders don't immediately get let loose on a battalion. They go through training before they get let loose on a platoon (closely supervised by the platoon sergeant) before commanding a specialist platoon and doing more training/staff appointments before they command a company after which they will go through more training before commanding a battalion.

I've been playing this game for years and have spent 32 years (and still going strong) in the Army and, while I can handle a battalion (in CM), it still takes a lot of careful planning and thought to pull it off well.

I love how you put this: "closely supervised by the platoon sergeant."  

This is SOOOO true. When I was a young lieutenant (field artillery) I was lucky enough to have a fairly senior SSG as my team sergeant. He considered it his mission to turn me into a LT that wouldn't get us all killed and to turn our RTO into a potential replacement for him. I'd like to think I was smart enough to take good advantage of that. We had a great relationship that started with him teaching me and then became a really good team as I gained knowledge and confidence. 

When they pin gold bars on you, they've only sort of taught you how to be an officer. They really didn't teach me much how to actually do the job, day to day. SSG "Sam" taught me that.

BTW when he got promoted to SFC and later I made CPT we were together again with him again as my top NCO, and that RTO by then was a SGT and did indeed take his place in our old team, and did it very well. One revolution in the cycle of leadership and learning.

[MOS:96B2P]

1 hour ago, Ultradave said:

<Snip>  BTW when he got promoted to SFC and later I made CPT we were together again with him again as my top NCO, and that RTO by then was a SGT and did indeed take his place in our old team, and did it very well. One revolution in the cycle of leadership and learning.

The way things work in good units.  Airborne!!! 

[HUSKER2142]

On 06.05.2017 at 10:53 AM, Vanir Ausf B said:

The AI in Combat Mission is overly attached to silver bullets, in my opinion. It's not really a bug because it's intentional, but I will log another complaint about it.

Is it possible to implement this way. If AI anti-tank gun can not penetrate the target with an AP projectile, then after 3-5 shots, he will use an APCR for destruction . In this case, AI should only consider shots that could not break the target, all shots that were counted as a miss are not taken into account. And only then go to another type of projectile, if there is one.

Edited May 11, 2017 by HUSKER2142

[Ithikial_AU]

In my opinion 'big' CMx2 battles are a completly different game to 'small' CMx2 battles and you need to play the whole thing from scratch different. For reference I define big as anything beyond a reinforced company. I also suggest not watching my channel since when I play larger engagements on that are being recorded I'm well aware I have a camera over my should so rush quite a bit where I shouldn't.

My rules of thumb:

- You will likely have a much larger map to play with but this also poses it's own set of challenges with a lot more options to consider (for both sides) for avenues of approach / provide covering fire etc. This also means there's more ground to cover and keep an eye on which can get very hard in the second half of an engagement when you are usually committed and after the casualties start to mount.

- A large battle will likely boil down to a number of seperate engagements you need to manage simultanously sometimes in complete isolation from each other. A good commander can keep each engagement ticking over and making progress, while a great commander will find a way to ensure each engagement will eventually be able to directly or indirectly support each other - putting extra pressure on your opponent to keep up. Being able to read which fight needs what support is a skill in it's own, where in the smaller CMx2 battles it's usally pretty concentrated so everything you have at your disposal goes into one effort.

- Don't go in with everything at once. You may have a force that looks unbeatable at deployment, but there's a good to excellent chance your opponent will be thinking the same thing at that point. If you have a battaltion of infantry to command, perhaps have 'Two Up, Two Down' that is you have two companies up front taking the hits while your on map reserves are ready to react or exploit a breakthrough or plug a hole that develops.

- Ensuring you have not only good communication but also quick and safe routes of travel behind the front line is crucial to allow the quick redeployment of forces from one engagement to another. Remember a great commander will find a way to support each engagement that develops on the map. For example lets say you need to take a town ahead with a ridge covered in a heavy forest running up the middle of your approach. Opting to fight on two sides of a thick forest may seem like a good idea to force the defender to spread out their forces, but in reality is probably not a good idea if this forest also blocks your ability to quickly traverse this natural barrier at some point with your supporting armour.

- Finally, time. You will likely have a lot of it and should use as much of it as possible, particularly if you are on the offensive. A personal pet gripe of mine is launching a new scenario and seeing you have a Battaltion(+) force and only 60 minutes to take three objectives. It makes no sense except in Hollywood for a major action to take under 60 minutes. The upper brass may order you to take a town in 60 minutes but once that alloted amounto f time passes it's not a case of pulling back for tea an biscuits, if you are engaged you keep going.

So this is where part one of my CMx2 wishlist items come in. The abiltiy for scenario designers to award victory points for finsihing a scenario before 'x' amount of time. It would give the ability for scenario designers to award players who are able to complete the engagement in the planned amount of time without having a hard end to the scenario. If you take longer you get less VP's. It would also be great on the defensive where you could alot additional VP's for each time marker a defender can hold the enemy up for. Great for delaying actions you want to model in game. Not to mention the campaign editor options for branching pathways.

My two cents and then some. Hope it helps.

[A Canadian Cat]

Obviously good points all. I just want to throw in a counter point (only slightly) of view on time.

9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

- Finally, time. You will likely have a lot of it and should use as much of it as possible, particularly if you are on the offensive. A personal pet gripe of mine is launching a new scenario and seeing you have a Battaltion(+) force and only 60 minutes to take three objectives. It makes no sense except in Hollywood for a major action to take under 60 minutes. The upper brass may order you to take a town in 60 minutes but once that alloted amounto f time passes it's not a case of pulling back for tea an biscuits, if you are engaged you keep going.

Time is a big balancing issue. I have the flip side reaction: a personal pet gripe of mine is launching a new scenario and seeing that you have a company(+) sized force and have to defend an area for 2 hours. It is nearly an impossible task for a force that size to hold out anything like that long on the defence.   Clearly time is an important balancing issue for the defender as it *is* the thing that will allow them to win or loose. In an attack in CM the defending side will very, very rarely be able to actually defeat the attackers from a destroy their force perspective. All they really have is time. There are many and frequent complaints that attackers do not have enough time on these boards from players playing against the AI. For their fun they want as much time as possible. But when playing head to head the defender needs there to be less time - not more. This leads to time being a balance problem for head to head battles frequently.

 

9 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

So this is where part one of my CMx2 wishlist items come in. The abiltiy for scenario designers to award victory points for finsihing a scenario before 'x' amount of time. It would give the ability for scenario designers to award players who are able to complete the engagement in the planned amount of time without having a hard end to the scenario. If you take longer you get less VP's. It would also be great on the defensive where you could alot additional VP's for each time marker a defender can hold the enemy up for. Great for delaying actions you want to model in game. Not to mention the campaign editor options for branching pathways.

I think that is a good idea. Cool - I'll have to keep that in mind for future requests.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

4 hours ago, IanL said:

I think that is a good idea.

+1

[Erwin]

" The abiltiy for scenario designers to award victory points for finsihing a scenario before 'x' amount of time. It would give the ability for scenario designers to award players who are able to complete the engagement in the planned amount of time without having a hard end to the scenario. If you take longer you get less VP's."

+1   I recall this being discussed a long time ago.  Hope the concept is looked at by BF.

 

[Blazing 88's]

On 2017-04-20 at 6:30 PM, z1812 said:

...Many players use RT Wego for smaller battles and Wego for for the larger battles.

FIXED!!      ...