Jump to content
Bil Hardenberger

CMSF 2 – US-SYRIA BETA AAR

Recommended Posts

Hi Bil

I see you are using a tight target armour arc in the last post - I am very loathe to use them as I have experience of the target moving out of the arc, another threat popping up outside of the arc. How do you weigh the advantages/disadvantages when choosing whether to apply one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, AlexUK said:

Hi Bil

I see you are using a tight target armour arc in the last post - I am very loathe to use them as I have experience of the target moving out of the arc, another threat popping up outside of the arc. How do you weigh the advantages/disadvantages when choosing whether to apply one?

I've caught a lot of flak in the past for my narrow target arcs for armor engagements.  But I have had a lot of luck with them, so I continue to use them when the circumstances warrant.

Care is required when using them like I am in the clip above:

  • Be assured that the target vehicle(s) have not moved for a while which means there could be a high likelihood of them not moving out of the arc
  • Protect your tank if at all possible by placing it in a key hole position.. in the example with the LAV-AT it can only be sighted along the narrow arc, it is masked from neighboring terrain for the most part.  I do not always follow this rule, and in those cases I try to keep them exposed with a narrow arc for a short period of time and then withdraw and cancel the arc.

Advantages (from my experience, YMMV):

  • All eyes are focused on the same small slice of terrain, so in my experience they spot very quickly, all other factors being in their favor (optics, skill level, enemy activity, terrain factors (dust, vegetation, etc.) etc.)
  • A turret or weapon system has only a very short distance to travel to align on an enemy target within the arc, this also increases the spot to engagement speed. 

You have to weigh whether these advantages in armor combat are worth the risk.

You and others know the disadvantages.  Be assured that I use them, but I try to use them only in certain circumstances and when the situation is exactly right. 

Bil

Edited by Bil Hardenberger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

Having never played SF. How does the FV 510 Warrior compare to the M2A3 Bradley in mechanized platoon vs mechanized platoon fight?

Depends on who's commanding them I would guess.  ;) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the detailed answer Bil, I will have another go with them - I can see that concentrated spotting in one area must be a key advantage. I am really enjoying the AAR! I think it is about to get pretty violent....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nice map! Loving the CMFI Mediterranean landscape and vegetation!

A few minor nits: except in winter (we can assume it here) or in well irrigated fields it won't be nearly so green. Lots more browns and yellows, even in the north highlands. And most of the year the watercourses will contain far less water relative to the cuts than in temperate areas. I might also sprinkle a few more cars and power poles to show this isn't a Volturno line time warp. Also, palms are still quite abundant until you get high in the mountains. Especially around houses.

Edited by LongLeftFlank

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

All eyes are focused on the same small slice of terrain, so in my experience they spot very quickly, all other factors being in their favor (optics, skill level, enemy activity, terrain factors (dust, vegetation, etc.) etc.)

 

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sense as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Edited by akd

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm Curious to see how the T90 will finally perform. Not spotting anything is really frustrating and also doesn’t give any indication what it’s anti-armour capabilities are since shoot what it doesn’t see. I’m sure the M1s will do fine on the other hand. The crew quality disparity doesn’t help when it comes to planning and analysis.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, akd said:

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sens as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Good to know! Always wondered if the arc made the eyes focus more on the area within the arc. Now the question is - If a sqaud is given a face move before the move (with the intent they will face that direction upon stopping) are they looking more that direction while moving?

Amazing that those of us who have been playing for years are still learning new tidbits of the mysteries of how things work under the hood all the time. Understanding all the little intricate subtitles really does give an edge in effective commanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, akd said:

Spotting is weighted by facing, not by target arcs.  The only affect of a target arc on spotting is to set the unit’s facing.  This makes sens as the order is not intended for controlling observation, but controlling fire.  Caveat: on moving vehicles with weapon stations that can pivot, setting a target arc away from the direction of travel does modify spotting.

Thanks for the information.  +1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

MINUTE 11

Remember the LAV-AT’s orders:

008.png

Now, imagine my horror when I saw this…

001.gif

…for some reason, instead of moving along its ordered path, LAV-AT #5 reversed into a position and presented its rear to Baneman’s Leopards…  Ce la Guerre.

002.gif

Quote

Never confuse a first defeat with a final defeat.” 
F Scott Fitzgerald

It is difficult, but it is important to remain positive when things like this happen.  Even in real war, a commander has to deal with the friction such events cause, it can separate the good from the bad.  Still.. losing both of these assets in subsequent turns is a huge impact to my available combat power.

 

Baneman continues to build up his KT1 position.  A platoon of Warrior IFVs were spotted moving fast south along the back road.

004.png

This image shows the locations for the two leopard 2A4s and the one Challenger spotted this turn.  Also identifies the Warrior platoon movement.

003.png

Also spotted a Spartan moving toward the line in company of either one or two Warriors.  This can only be either the HQ Section or the Javelin Section (see the possible Enemy Order of battle below).

006.png

A Bradley platoon moves to cross the stream on their way to the Hill 42-Hill 41.1 ridgeline.  What they are up to in a future post.

005.png

  • PIR:  Where are the enemy tanks?  The enemy Leopard 2 tanks and at least one of the British Challengers (and probably both) are in the KT1 line providing fire support.

A slightly reformatted Blood Board showing available and remaining vehicles of each type:

Blood+Board+11.png

RECOVERED ENEMY ORDER OF BATTLE

NOTE:  Bolded items indicate confirmation sightings indicating I KNOW these formations exist on the map whether I have spotted all components or not.

UK

  • RECCE Platoon
    • x8 Scimitar
    • x1 FV432 Mk3 Bulldog
    • x1 Spartan
  • Armoured Rifle Company
    • HQ Section
      • x2 Warrior
      • x1 Spartan
    • x3 Rifle Platoon
      • x4 Warrior
    • Javelin Section
      • x2 Warrior
      • x1 Spartan
      • x2 Javelin Launcher (with x2 dismount teams)
    • Mortar Platoon
      • x1 Spartan
      • x2 FV432 (Mortar Carrier)
  • Tank Section
    • x2 Challenger

GERMAN

  • Aufklarung Platoon
    • x4 Fennek
  • Panzergrenadier (PG) Company
    • HQ Team
      • x2 Marder
    • Observer Section
      • x1 Wolf
    • x3 PG Platoon
      • x4 Marder
  • Panzer Section
    • x2 Leopard 
Edited by Bil Hardenberger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"…for some reason, instead of moving along its ordered path, LAV-AT #5 reversed into a position and presented its rear to Baneman’s Leopards…  Ce la Guerre."

 

Seems like this is a pretty serious bug.  The unit also ignored the Covered Arc which is supposed to control Facing, as mentioned in a previous post.  Or was this User error?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen that type of behaviour from tank path finding across all CM2 games. The type of terrain and proximity to houses, trees or other vehicles makes it more likely. Target arcs to not control facing of the entire vehicle, there is a Face command for that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looks like the vehicle never reached the waypoint to which the arc was assigned. Multiple waypoints in a straight line along the backing up path may, possibly, have prevented the vehicle from going so badly astray.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rocketman said:

I have seen that type of behaviour from tank path finding across all CM2 games. The type of terrain and proximity to houses, trees or other vehicles makes it more likely. Target arcs to not control facing of the entire vehicle, there is a Face command for that.

It still seems to me that this behavior is a serious bug, and should be corrected.  Obviously, this "bug" is highly unrealistic, and it has serious consequences which can affect the outcome of a scenario.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

More in that post to discuss than an errant LAV..   ;)  

For example:  

- any insights from the Enemy Order of Battle?

- where do you think the Warrior platoon spotted this turn is heading?

- how ugly are the British vehicles with the antitank grenade cages?

Edited by Bil Hardenberger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Baneman has what appears to be decent BPs for his Leopards, though I'd rate yours as being better; may just be the angle of the photo but it appears you have better elevation. At any rate, you seem to have more masked positions to shift between at present - that is to say, you have better observation on him than he has on you. 

What is that contact at Farm 011?  You probably already mentioned it, so apologies if that's the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
33 minutes ago, Rinaldi said:

Baneman has what appears to be decent BPs for his Leopards, though I'd rate yours as being better; may just be the angle of the photo but it appears you have better elevation. At any rate, you seem to have more masked positions to shift between at present - that is to say, you have better observation on him than he has on you. 

What is that contact at Farm 011?  You probably already mentioned it, so apologies if that's the case.

My position is slightly higher.  But he has the advantage of maneuvering room.  It takes me a lot longer to get my units into position than it does him. 

The Farm 11 contact was discussed in previous turns.  There are two Scimitars in that area.   

Edited by Bil Hardenberger

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The minutiae of movement plotting (which are in no way new to the game) really are not the focus of your AAR. I’d like to know:

  • What is a BP that Rinaldi referred to?
  • It seems that you’re consideably outgunned in heavy armour - Challengers and Leopard 2s seem an overmatch for a force half (?) composed of T90s. Given the constraints in movement you also have compared to the enemy, how will you turn that around? 
  • Are you concerned about his more capable mech infantry (and their carriers) compared to your Syrians ? Does it seem necessary to concentrate a larger force locally to defeat his?
Edited by Bud Backer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Bud Backer said:

The minutiae of movement plotting (which are in no way new to the game) really are not the focus of your AAR. I’d like to know:

  • What is a BP that Rinaldi referred to?
  • It seems that you’re consideably outgunned in heavy armour - Challengers and Leopard 2s seem an overmatch for a force half (?) composed of T90s. Given the constraints in movement you also have compared to the enemy, how will you turn that around? 
  • Are you concerned about his more capable mech infantry (and their carriers) compared to your Syrians ? Does it seem necessary to concentrate a larger force locally to defeat his?

Great questions Bud.

  • BP = Battle Postion
  • T-90s - well yes they are seriously outclassed, but I do not intend for them to combat the enemy Challengers and Leopards.  I suspect they would be very roughly handled if they did.  I have other assets I intend to use against the enemy tanks.
  • Constraints in movement - in a form of battlefield judo, I intend to use his maneuver advantage against him.  I WANT him to feel comfortable deploying deep into the valley between my position and his, the more he spreads his combat power out in that kill zone the better.  
  • Baneman's Infantry v Syrian infantry - this is not a concern of mine at all.  I doubt the dismounts will have much of an impact on this fight, at least not against each other.
  • Concentration -  I intend to concentrate my fire, not necessarily my units, so in that sense, yes it is important for me to concentrate against his assets in order to defeat him.

Sorry to be so cryptic, but I would hate to give too much away.

Bil

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Chops said:

It still seems to me that this behavior is a serious bug, and should be corrected.  Obviously, this "bug" is highly unrealistic, and it has serious consequences which can affect the outcome of a scenario.

It is not a "bug" it is attention to how the AI may react in a given set of circumstances.  They can't program a "correct" response for everything the game may have as a result.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bil Hardenberger said:

Great questions Bud.

  • BP = Battle Postion
  • T-90s - well yes they are seriously outclassed, but I do not intend for them to combat the enemy Challengers and Leopards.  I suspect they would be very roughly handled if they did.  I have other assets I intend to use against the enemy tanks.
  • Constraints in movement - in a form of battlefield judo, I intend to use his maneuver advantage against him.  I WANT him to feel comfortable deploying deep into the valley between my position and his, the more he spreads his combat power out in that kill zone the better.  
  • Baneman's Infantry v Syrian infantry - this is not a concern of mine at all.  I doubt the dismounts will have much of an impact on this fight, at least not against each other.
  • Concentration -  I intend to concentrate my fire, not necessarily my units, so in that sense, yes it is important for me to concentrate against his assets in order to defeat him.

Sorry to be so cryptic, but I would hate to give too much away.

Bil

The devil is in the details, Bil. ;) Though I think I see in a general sense where you’re going with some of this. The only thing I’m not understanding - yet - is why the infantry is not a concern. I’ll wait and watch and learn. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×