Community Strategy Guide

[hcrof]

Artillery

Artillery is known to the Russians as the 'king of battle' and can have a powerful effect on the enemy, bringing massive firepower to bear without risking your own troops to return fire. Correctly used it can turn a battle around but use it wrong and that firepower will go to waste or worse – kill your own men.

In general it is best to use quite small area targets, you should know where the enemy is and you don't want to 'dilute' the mission on empty ground as this will just be a waste of shells. Shock is crucial to destroy targets.

It might sound obvious but make sure you use all your artillery! If ammo levels aren't an issue an intense bombardment can save lives so while it is a good idea to keep a module in reserve, don't be afraid to unleash the guns.

Syrian artillery

Syrian artillery is significantly slower than its western counterparts, this reflects the less sophisticated communication systems and a rigid chain of command. This can be exploited by a western player. As they notice the first spotting rounds landing they can move their troops into safety, making it much less useful. If the Western player can keep the tempo high, the Syrians may never get the chance to call in any missions at all!

Syrian artillery is not useless however, spotting rounds and slow bombardments can be used to deny good locations from enemy spotters or javelin teams, on the offence the Syrians can destroy fixed defences like houses or trenches and a well planned preliminary bombardment can be devastating. See the MLRS section for how to exploit preliminary bombardments to the full.

Mortars

Mortars are the lowest level of artillery, used at battalion level or below (with a few exceptions out of CMSF's scope) as a form of on call firepower for the tactical commander. They are common and can quickly react to a fire mission but mortar shells are quite light and do not fragment as much as the heavier guns. Mortars excel at clearing infantry out of exposed trenches and open ground.

Example fire missions:

Infantry squad in a trench – A short linear fire mission along the trench. Quick/short duration, heavy intensity, airburst.

ATGM firing position – A small circular fire mission. Short duration, heavy intensity, airburst.

Enemy observation post – Any sized fire mission. 1 gun, maximum duration, light intensity, airburst. This will persuade most humans not to risk their observers although a bigger area will need a more intense mission (not 2 guns!). You may need to combine it with another, more intense fire mission to kill any observers already there.

Smoke mission – Linear fire pattern, maximum duration, heavy/medium intensity. Smoke

Guns/Howitzers

These are used by large formations at the critical points of the line. When attacking, they can be used to effectively suppress and destroy almost any position. When used in defence they can put down fire to slow down and destroy enemy forces – even vehicles! Bear in mind though that artillery takes longer to call in. Have a plan so that you call in the fire mission several minutes before you expect to need it. When it arrives, your troops should be just moving into positions to exploit the fire mission.

Example fire missions:

Destroy a house/line of houses – Point or linear fire mission, long duration, heavy intensity, anti tank.

Destroy a stationary vehicle – Point fire mission, medium/long duration, heavy duration, anti tank.

Suppress a position – Area fire mission, long/maximum duration, medium/high intensity. General

MLRS

Multiple launch rocket systems fire an enormous amount of explosives onto an area very quickly. Offsetting this advantage is the fact that the rockets don't fragment very well (comparable to mortars) and the fact that the fire mission is inaccurate. Don't expect to call in linear fire missions as the rockets spread themselves out in a 200m diameter. Usually used to launch cluster munitions or to perform counter battery fire, they can still have a huge shock effect on the battlefield against exposed troops. Their main disadvantages are the long reloading times and long delays for a fire mission.

Example fire missions:

Suppression before an assault – Area fire, maximum duration, high intensity, general/airburst. Cancel the mission after the first wave of rockets, the launchers with fire sporadically and inaccurately after that. Unless the enemy is very exposed they will not be destroyed, however they should be heavily suppressed with 20-50% casualties so immediately follow the fire mission with an assault.

Pre registered target – Area fire, maximum duration, high intensity general/airburst. Delay the fire mission (10-15 mins) and place it over somewhere you expect the enemy to be in that time. If necessary, suppress them with other weapons to fix them there and wait for the mission to hit them as they are exposed. If they don't arrive in time, cancel the fire mission.

Emergency fire missions

As a rule of thumb, don't bother with emergency fire missions as they are usually so inaccurate that anything but the largest area fire mission will miss completely. If you have a very experienced FO, preferably in a FO vehicle you can give it a go in a emergency but you will need multiple modules of artillery with big area targets to be sure of any effect.

Defending against artillery

Because artillery can hit anywhere, any time it must become a prime concern to a defender. There are 2 ways to defend against it and both must be used together. Firstly, forces must be spread out so that any artillery strike will not kill too many men. Dummy positions can be used to deceive your opponent as to where your MLR is to cause them to waste shells on tactically insignificant positions. Secondly, your positioning must be unpredictable. Trenches and houses are predictable places for your troops and the enemy may target them 'just in case'. Deploy your troops in such a way as to surprise your opponent and they might gain more protection from unpredictability than walls or trenches.

[hcrof]

Any comments on artillery? Does anyone have a better use for it? Have I said something stupid that needs correcting?

What about air? What is the best way to employ air power?

Lets keep this thread going with some discussion!

[dan/california]

Air Power...

Speaking strictly in game terms, airpower is both less responsive and much more inclined to friendly fire problems than artillery. Therefore it is often wise to call it as early and as far forward of your own troops as possible. At this point helicopters and Fixed wing get very different in my experience.

For fixed wing assets they tend to have massive overmatch against point targets so if there are building that are obvious problems and/or objectives, just flatten them. An JDAM into the bottom floor usually brings the whole thing down. No building, no problem.

I get excellent results with helicopters by giving maximum size area targets specifying armor. But this is a blunt instrument and requires a LARGE separation between the specified area and your own troops. This has frequently resulted in the choppers killing AFVs I hadn't spotted yet. The chopper will also provide a certain amount of recon. Helicopters are much less effective against buildings in my experience.

[hcrof]

Thanks for that, that is pretty much what I do too with air. I don't use it enough though so I wouldn't consider myself an expert.

It also strikes me that just the threat of air can be an effective tool by limiting what your opponent can do. On the other hand, not using air till later on in the battle can make your opponent sloppy.

Any thoughts?

[Ryujin]

If you playing a live player, you can often get a response with just the sound of aircraft, just like how you can get players to move with a couple spotting rounds. Even if I don't have any good targets, a pass from a jet or chopper can get a similar evasive response and then I cancel the CAS call.

[hcrof]

The Main Battle Tank and How to use it

One of the hallmarks of the modern battlefield is the use of the Main Battle Tank. A modern tank is used to quickly move a massive amount of firepower to where it is needed and to have enough protection to shrug off anything the enemy tries to stop it with. In short, they are a battle winner, but they are not invulnerable and one bad decision can turn your war machines into flaming wrecks.

Tank Armour

One of the biggest problems facing tank designers is weight. Although it would be nice to have your tank protected by 6 feet of armour, in reality the engine would give up and no bridge would be strong enough to take you across.

Tank armour is concentrated in the area which are most likely to be hit – the front. Below is a diagram showing approximate armour strengths.

Western tanks like the Abrams are nearly impenetrable in the front turret. In addition, all the sensor

equipment is located here. The reason for this is that it allows the tank to go 'Hull down'. Hull down is a defensive posture where the tank is positioned so that only the turret shows above a ridge. This makes it a much smaller target and exposes only the strongest armour to enemy fire. A good commander will seek to position his tanks hull down at all times when stationary and only leave the position in order to move to a new hull down location.

Bear in mind that hull down is relative. Just because an enemy tank can only see your turret from one direction doesn't mean that another tank isn't creeping into a better position in order to take you out. Also because all the sensor equipment is on the front turret, it can easily be destroyed if hit. A blind tank is a useless tank.

In Shock force the best way to go Hull down is to move the camera to a likely location and go as close to the ground as possible. This will give you an idea as to whether that place is suitable. After plotting a movement order, click on the waypoint and extend a targeting line to the area where enemy fire is likely to come from and the game will tell you whether you are hull down or not. If you are not fully hull down, just move the waypoint slightly and try again. After a few tries, your tank will be in a perfect location!

The weapon system

The main weapon on a tank is its gun. A tank gun can fire 3 types of ammunition, each with a different purpose, strengths and weaknesses.

APFSDS: Armour Piercing Fin Stabilised Discarding Sabot – Primary ammunition used to destroy enemy tanks. It is basically a long and heavy dart that concentrates an incredible amount of energy into a very small area. Penetrating power is lost at very long ranges because the projectile slows down due to air resistance.

HE: High Explosive – Effective against infantry and buildings but tank armour will probably be unaffected.

HEAT: High Explosive Anti Tank – Uses a shaped charge to concentrates an explosion into a very small point. Can pierce armour even if the projectile is moving very slowly and has a secondary role against infantry. Designed to be used at very long range where the sabot round has lost most of its energy.

HESH: High Explosive Squash Head – Uses a low velocity explosive charge that 'splats' against a target before exploding. The resulting shock wave causes the armour to flake away at high speeds, damaging anything inside. Can also be used against infantry and is especially effective against light armoured vehicles and structures.

Just as important as the gun is the optics and targeting system. If a gun can't see and hit the target first, it is useless. Western tanks are considerably better in this capacity, resulting in many Syrian vehicles blowing up without the commanders even knowing they were under attack. Western tanks also have the ability to fire on the move with much greater accuracy due to better gun stabilisation equipment.

A classic example of this is the evolution of the T-72. Although, they are fundamentally the same tank, late model T-72's are orders of magnitude more effective than the early ones – mainly because of improved optics and fire control.

Tanks also carry a number of machine guns which are useful against enemy infantry as ammunition for the main guns is limited.

[hcrof]

The above post is the last thing I have written for the guide. In addition to the usual analysis of my post and additions to the information already up there, does anyone think more is needed for the guide?

What else needs to be included?

Will anyone contribute more sections?

[Apocal]

*snip*

Just curious about your reasoning, why have the MGs in the first trench?

[daft]

The above post is the last thing I have written for the guide. In addition to the usual analysis of my post and additions to the information already up there, does anyone think more is needed for the guide?

What else needs to be included?

Will anyone contribute more sections?

Again, I think a few more illustrated AAR type examples could be very useful to new players. Various types of attack and defence, MOUT, etc just to cover the bases. They certainly wouldn't all have to be successfully played out as long as they are accompanied by reflective text describing various options available in the described scenario and some elaboration on those options. That would, IMO, go a long way in explaining how it all fits together. Great work so far.

[hcrof]

I found something else on my computer. I should have posted it earlier but what the hell

Morale, suppression and cohesion

For all the high technology on the modern battlefield, the most important asset a commander has are the soldiers themselves. Soldiers however are human, and like anyone else they all fear death on the battlefield. When the bullets start to come too close and friends start to get hit, the natural reaction is to curl into a ball and wish the ground would swallow him up, rendering him useless in combat and probably in more danger than he would have been in the first place.

All soldiers are trained to react in certain ways and to follow orders even when their minds have shut down in fear but they are not machines – ignore this and you will lose a lot of men.

Unit cohesion

Unit cohesion is a difficult concept to define but it incorporates how well the soldiers get on with each other and their leaders and how experienced they are working with each other. Soldiers in cohesive unit know how each other thinks and will act so as to not let them down. They will accomplish tasks faster and will be more resilient under stress.

A unit such as Syrian reservists will have only trained together a few times before, none of them have any attachment to their officers or each other and they certainly don't want to fight in the army. They have very low unit cohesion and as soon as bullets start to fall near them they will abandon whatever mission they where given to try and take cover. They might even flee altogether!

In Combat Mission, cohesion is represented by a mix of experience, leadership bonus, morale, and motivation bonus and like real life, US squads tend to have higher values in all these areas.

Morale

Morale can be defined as the happiness and confidence of a unit. A squad that is well led and looked after will tend to have high morale. A unit with high morale will follow orders better and recover from setbacks quicker. Under artillery fire, a unit with high morale will stay ready to get back into fighting form as soon as the shells have stopped whereas a squad will low morale might just run away.

Likewise, the loss of a leader or a lot of fellow soldiers will hit morale badly and many poor quality squads will panic if it happens.

Suppression

Suppression is one of the most important aspects of combat. Most infantry are not expected to hit targets with their rifles in combat even at medium range. However, the weight of fire will probably force the enemy to stay in cover to avoid being shot. If they are hiding, they are not shooting at you so you can move into a better position or call up heavy weapons to destroy the enemy.

The best weapons for suppression are machine guns because they are accurate at long ranges and can put out a very large weight of fire. US troops are accurate enough at range to suppress as well but Syrian riflemen are not often expected to suppress the enemy, the AK-47 and its derivatives were designed for close assault as an evolution from the WW2 SMG squads.

[Ryujin]

US troops are accurate enough at range to suppress as well but Syrian riflemen are not often expected to suppress the enemy, the AK-47 and its derivatives were designed for close assault as an evolution from the WW2 SMG squads.

I'm not so sure about that, while the AK is certainly made for "up close and personal", I believe the soviet concept of the AK was for a cheap, easy, and reliable gun that could put down a large quantity of fire. I think the conscripts the AK-47 was designed for were supposed to use large quantities of suppressive fire and close with the enemy. It's not exactly designed for anything other than slinging lots of lead. Not all that accurately at a distance, but if you have enough people it works to keep their heads down.

With the syrians in CMSF sometimes the best tactic is just to put down loads of area targets in the general area of the enemy and let a couple platoons let loose a torrent of lead and RPGs. Seems to work better than having them try to aim, especially with low quality troops. If you have enough of them and you fire first, it can actually have some effect vs BLUFOR.

[hcrof]

I believe the soviet concept of the AK was for a cheap, easy, and reliable gun that could put down a large quantity of fire.

Doesent that sound like a PPSh? I probably shouldn't disguise my opinion as fact but I wanted to emphasise the fact that a soviet squad won't really use fire and maneuvre like a western one. Their job is to leave the carrier then assault the enemy. While they do that, as you say, they put down a torrent of unaimed lead in the general direction of the enemy. I think they even fire from the hip as they advance!

Anyway, RED needs artillery and IFV's to suppress the enemy and will find it very difficult to attack without them.

[Ryujin]

It certainly is like the PPSh, but not a submachinegun either. I think we're sort of agreeing.

Here's what I'm trying to say as clearly as possible:

The AK-47 is designed to be used on fully automatic. This means that soviet conscripts were expected to suppress until they were within effective range of automatic fire vs point targets. My point is that the AK wielding conscripts are expected to suppress a lot (unless there is something better, like an IFV, same basically applies to US troops too). The suppression may not be utalized in the same way as US infantry, but the AK has a lot more reach vs area targets than a PPSh. So while it is intended to be used in a similar manner, it is effected by the fact it is a rifle. Soviet AK sop as far as I know is that every one would be putting down bursts of fire as they advance to rely on the massive weight of fire from that many AKs laying down fire to supplement the RPKs/PKs/AFVs. You need plenty of troops for this to work, but as the soviets/syrians that's usually one thing you do have.

[Palladium]

Question, what actual game effect does the "leadership" modifier have in-game? I've never quite figured it out.

[hcrof]

I am not sure about this but I think that a squad with good leadership will respond better under fire. (they won't get bad morale hits from casualties and they will recover faster from supression). In addition I think they will share information faster amongst different units. If a squad loses its leadership it becomes much less effective. While a western squad may still be able to fight, a syrian squad would probably break then and there.

Platoon leadership is less obvious in morale effects but still, if you knock out a Syrian platoon HQ, the whole platoon will be much less combat effective. (poor quality reservists would probably take that opportunity to run off).

In game terms, a western platoon HQ is probably the just the way to share information up and down the chain of command, a Syrian platoon HQ is the 'heart' of the platoon and therefore arguably more important.

[hcrof]

Well, work continues on my strategy guide! I have created a table of all the tanks available in the game with information about armour thicknesses and gun round penetration. It is all colour coded for easy reference.

I did some of my own research but much of the information is provided by Damien90. There is also A LOT of guesswork involved! Because of that and the fact that there is some missing information I will release it as a Beta for people to check and once we get a better idea for the values I can release it properly.

Its going up on the repository now.

[hcrof]

I should also say that armour values, especially on Soviet/Russian tanks are very variable. While the chart might say 900mm turret front, that is just an average value and in reality there are thicker bits and much thinner bits (like bits not covered by ERA).

For example, if the gun round is orange, you have a reasonable chance of defeating orange armour, a very good chance of defeating red armour and small chance of defeating yellow armour.

As I said above, Soviet/Russian tanks are far more likely to get destroyed by a 'golden BB' shot than a western one.

Edit: Also of note is that I have already updated it. Make sure you download the new one! I will delete the old one shortly.

[Ryujin]

I am not sure about this but I think that a squad with good leadership will respond better under fire. (they won't get bad morale hits from casualties and they will recover faster from supression). In addition I think they will share information faster amongst different units. If a squad loses its leadership it becomes much less effective. While a western squad may still be able to fight, a syrian squad would probably break then and there.

Platoon leadership is less obvious in morale effects but still, if you knock out a Syrian platoon HQ, the whole platoon will be much less combat effective. (poor quality reservists would probably take that opportunity to run off).

In game terms, a western platoon HQ is probably the just the way to share information up and down the chain of command, a Syrian platoon HQ is the 'heart' of the platoon and therefore arguably more important.

yeah, I think C2 is factored in moral. I've noticed that Syrian rifle squads that have seen little or no contact will often take a moral hit if the C2 is badly damaged. Western squads can easily keep sharing info with other units if the PHQ is taken out, they all have radios and often FBCB2 gear. Many Syrian units, especially with poor equipment are completely dependent on the platoon RTO for contact to other units and up the chain of command. I think even if the platoon leader is alive, if the RTO goes down they lose contact.

On a related note...

Something important for a guide, but that does not seem to be widely known, is the effectiveness of western FISTVs like the BFIST/Stryker FSV. Many people don't seem to realize FOs in these have first round fire for effect capability (emergency calls are fast and extremely accurate).

[Lanzfeld]

Is this guide downloadable somwhere? I did not see it in the repository.

[taccovert4]

Something important for a guide, but that does not seem to be widely known, is the effectiveness of western FISTVs like the BFIST/Stryker FSV. Many people don't seem to realize FOs in these have first round fire for effect capability (emergency calls are fast and extremely accurate).

IIRC from in-game experience, there is also a significant delay reduction for FOs in BFists under any circumstances. I believe it is something like a 50 percent reduction in time from initial call to FFE, for any called fires. The examples I'm attempting to remember were from a BFIST on a ridge calling for fire at approx 800m in the open, and from a 6th story of a building calling for fire on a row of 2 story buildings approx. 500m distant. In both cases contact was established with the highest command unit on the map (be it company CO, Battalion XO or Battalion CO).

And you're right, they are scarily accurate. I prefer to use FSVs when assaulting trenches in open terrain, because I can call linear missions quickly, and drop my Anti-personell rounds directly on the line I call, rather than on a line 15m behind it (which can make all the difference between suppression with mild casualties and total annihilation of the enemy). In restricted terrain, like MOUT, I prefer to keep my FOs dismounted and moving into buildings, both for better vantage points, and to prevent their death if the FSV was to get hit with an ATGM/RPG.

Also, does anyone know if FSVs increase the precision of units calling for fire that are not trained FOs? Such as leadership units like XOs and COs? It would be nice if your Battalion XO and his RO could hop in a Stryker FSV and take advantage of the rangefinders, radios, and computers availible there.

[Ryujin]

I think the "equipment bonus" from being in a FISTV applies to anyone in it, but I think the FOs are the only ones who can push it to it's full potential. However a XO team could probably use it well enough for most tasks.

I personally like to keep the FOs in the FISTV, especially when playing against another player, as first round FFE is 10x more usefull in multiplayer. Being able to accuratly drop fire across the street from my troops with no warning is an immensely useful capability, obviously offset by the increased risk to the FISTV and FO team being exposed to ATGM fire.

For the REDFOR I believe that the comms gear in the PCs and more recently the UAZs does give a slight bonus to their FOs. Not in accuracy obviously, but response time.

[hcrof]

Is this guide downloadable somwhere? I did not see it in the repository.

The guide is still work in progress at the moment so I havn't published it yet. If any one wants to help it would be very welcome!

Right now I think the guide needs more illustrated examples of set pieces like a an infantry defence for example. Also, if anyone could check through the figures on my armour guide I would be very grateful. There are still ommisions and I'm sure I have made some mistakes somewhere - for example, I find it hard to believe that the Abrams has 900mm protection vs HEAT on its side!

[Damian90]

for example, I find it hard to believe that the Abrams has 900mm protection vs HEAT on its side!

Eh, not everywhere, only 1/3 front side hull over driver station.

There is such armor configuration over there:

~50mm side layered heavy balistic skirt, air gap for suspension and tracks, ~80-100mm or more side hull, it is possible that there is something else, maybe simple multilayer laminate armor? Well there is enough space for it there, behind outer side hull there are big fuel cells with honeycomb structure, these were designed to funtion as additional armor inserts, so they not only protect driver station from the sides but also gives additonal boost in protection for frontal armor, especially glacis plate. Behind fuel cells there is another thick, maybe ~80mm RHA plate.

One way or another, this area is preatty well protected, and estimations are from Paul Lakowsky "Armor Basics".

Rest side hull is simple ~80mm in 2/3 upper part and ~50mm in lower 1/3 part RHA plate.

Side turret armor is ~350-400mm thick, so with 30-45 degrees angle hit it should provide 650-800mm LOS, but I don't know if this is only for KE, or HEAT or only estimated LOS with such angle of hit.

If anyone can provide us with good, clean shot's of tanks (especially M1's and CR2's), even from CMSF I can do simple armor layout in paint, where is "special" armor and estimated LOS thickness or RHAe against KE and HEAT. Best pics should be from the front, side and top view.

[gibsonm]

The guide is still work in progress at the moment so I havn't published it yet. If any one wants to help it would be very welcome!

Well I don't know about hard cover and on the top sellers list but happy to provide an electronic location, Like I did with the "Scenario Designer's Manual" a few years ago.

This sort of thing:

http://homepage.mac.com/gibsonm1/CMSF/FileSharing24.html

Also happy to take what you have and convert it into a pdf. I'm hoping there's one document somewhere or is it a case of scrolling through the pages of this post and grabbing snippets here and there?

[gibsonm]

If anyone can provide us with good, clean shot's of tanks (especially M1's and CR2's), even from CMSF I can do simple armor layout in paint, where is "special" armor and estimated LOS thickness or RHAe against KE and HEAT. Best pics should be from the front, side and top view.

I think this will fit your needs:

Gary's Combat Vehicle Reference Guide

It gives you front, flank and 3/4 views.

As long as you give it credit as the source.