George MC

Probably all the sniping that goes on, from those who contribute rather less, eh?

I think that BFC are planning a new game where Steve and the boys in the band get to kill anyone who asks what the next game will be. But, I might be just a tad mistaken.

Peiper's SPW unit prior to their Kharkov operations bolted additional plate armour to the front of their SPW. You can see this in photos of the unit during this period - this primarily to combat ATR bullets being fired at the front to disable the SPW.

Early SPW did not have the shield mount for the MG and you can find images of SPW with makeshift protection.
Looking through the new RZM book about KG Muhlenkamp you don't see the shield mounted MG being manned as a matter of course in the images (even although the images were taken when the unit was in action). You do see the crew cautiously peering over the sides, heads well tucked down. There are a few action shots that show the MG being manned and the gunner despite the shield still appears rather exposed..


In the image above not sure I'd be perched on the edge of the vehicle with my back to the action!
So maybe our SPW gunners being picked off in the game is not unrealistic!
 

Perhaps a taller (heavier) shield would have been more difficult to rotate quickly? Not really convincing, but that's all I can think of. The way the gunner has to bend over when firing also can't have been comfortable. Or perhaps the gunner must have been able to look over the shield from time to time, in order to have a good overview at his target?
Btw, I also ordered that book, George. Thanks for the recommendation. I always appreciate being pointed to a good book, it is hard to keep up with all books that are being published.
 

Best game of the Six Nations so far. Pity for England, but the Scots deserved it.

I think you are right to suggest that there was a certain amount of shooting from the hip in this case. But I also think that it is understandable if some people have been made a bit trigger happy by posters who in fact are simply tiresome whining trolls. What we all need to do is to take a deep breath and count to ten before blowing somebody out of the water. Let 'em show their true colors and then if need be, blow 'em out of the water.
Michael

Normally I'd agree, however what you didn't say is 3 of his 8 posts are argumentative responses to answers to his original post - hence my suggesting maybe he has his mind already made up in which case what is he looking for here that would be worth considering to alter his view.
If I were to ask you why you'd suggest I read another book on WW2, you gave your reasons why you felt it was a good read, then I tried arguing with you why it wasn't worth it despite my not reading it, how would you take that?  Then I started arguing that volume 2 of that book was essentially the same source material as volume 1 so why should I pay for volume 2..... And oh yeah the author previously wrote a book on another ww2 battle and I already read that so this one should be cheaper. 
Frankly even the initial post is made in a very argumentative manner.  The responses were restrained and the argumentative tone continued.  In addition some of these arguments sound really familiar (paying for "patches" etc.).  The post isn't about "Is CMBS worth it i.e. is the game enjoyable" so much as "is BFs entire development process worth it".
Yes we should all lighten up a bit.  It is just a gaming forum after all, but I'd disagree that the responses have been totally out of line.

Gentlemen - none of you should follow my advices. It is all optional and if you guys dont feel like following what I am saying. 
About online games - I've lost only one game in my life and it was my first online via email game. I dint knew what to expect and thats why I picked units as I picked them. And I never said that I was undefeatable. 
I did lost a battle because I picked wrong units. But loss can happen to anyone. And what I like about losses in general is that they teach us more than our victories. The purpose of this topic is to share ideas and approaches, experiences and tricks. In my latest screens Im talking about controling large force on macro and micro level. That can be useful or usless depends on your views and approaches. It is optional to take what I'm saying into consideration. Im not a 100 dollar bill to make everyone like me. Yet, I will keep on posting because there are many people who texting me and telling me "thank you" for what I do. Besides those who disagree I've met those who asked me for more content like that. I have my pleasure to see that some players are using my mods, asking me questions and sharing their emotions and knowlage with me. All I can do in return is to keep on doing what I'm doing. 
Now this thing what im showing here has only one goal in its core - to show variety of things what people can take and adopt to their games, battles, etc. 
I've decided to go from small to big - first I was talking about how I place tranches and stuff, then I was talking about certain small things - and now I've decided to make a post series about Mechanized Battalion attacking mechanized company just to show how I see it should be controlled. Then I was planing to make a series of those posts about deffense, then about different types and ways of using artillery as a stopping factor, as a tool of a direct hit and then as a trick for switching attention. Besides that I would like to talk about raiding operations, recconissance and so on. 
I like this game and I enjoy making statements supported by screenshots from my own battles. Moreover, this topic wasnt created for me only - many people shared their thoughts here and I was hoping that it would be a place where new players will be able see different ways to do things in CMBS. Ive actually recived few thankful letters few days ago from new players who recently bought the game. So all i do and post here is to make it look as simple as possible so that in the future in way more difficult battles players who viewed this topic would have a thing or two adopted from me or from other players what were sharing their ways of doing things. 
Once again gentlemen - you should not follow my posts if you dont like them. The amount of views of this topic and positive comments+msgs on other topics of mine made me think that some people do like what im doing here. So am I the greatest strategist of all times? No I'm not. Have I lost a battle? Yes once I've lost one battle (it was my first one via email battle). But I'm not about victories Im about the spirit. It is a wonderful game and I love it. Ill show you what I do in it - you guys please show what you do in it and how. Let this community grow. 
Last but not least - its not about my ego - there are many ways to do things right and there are many ways to do things wrong.
Everyone can be defeated here and there, but it is about keeping our heads up and learning from our mistakes so that one day you will enjoy your victory as a deserved one. 
And this is what I wish to all of you - be strong and keep on going even if you've lost once.

 
 

'Panzer Tactics' by Wolfgang Schneider.  This is a great book, lots of pics and formation sketches.

Ah, the wonders of defense procurement specialists...

Aye that was a HUGE amount of work - I'm indebted Herr Oberleutnant!  And to your good wife. If you both every find your ways to Scotland the drinks are on me!

When you download the campaign file you also get the PDF with the branching pathways (along with short descriptions of each mission) and a 'blood' chart (courtesy of @Combatintman to track your losses).  

Yep, spot on. We all have a responsibility to call out BS or as the kids are calling it these days Fake News. We should do that everywhere. Keep in mind some people will hate you for it and be very vocal about it so be prepared. And no I am not talking about this thread - these guys are pussy cats. I have had my Scottish heritage disavowed in the most unspeakable terms on other sites.
 
LOL brilliant. No bifocals here yet. OK, OK that's cause I refused at my last eye exam and now accept that I do need them...  Damn it, it is technically true that I don't have them now.
PS. How is it that @sburke's awesome post about putting out the real facts has more up-votes than my actual post about the truth.
PPS. Anyone who thinks that the truth doesn't win in the end - have a listen to Malcolm Gladwell's pod cast "Revisionist History" (http://revisionisthistory.com/). Oh man do some of those guys look like doofuses now. And again not talking about this thread - this is kids stuff - light weights. Fake News never lasts.

Yep. The thing is I avoid people who are rude - even those that might be correct. Rude is pointless, rude is crass, rude is unnecessary. My preference is to surround myself with smart, confident people who speak their mind and are constructive and thoughtful. Rude people are kicked to the curb. I don't really care how damn smart you are rude = outta my sight. Which means if I am the boss you are fired if I'm not I'll ignore your rude butt. Life is too short to bother with rude people.
Oh and I can tell if its raining pretty well myself thanks. See no value in rudeness.

Great wee video that covers training, crew requirements, Panzer Formations, Organization, specific combat scenarios like fighting anti-tank guns, combat against tanks and bunkers - early war but still interesting stuff.
 

It's not about AI, because there is no AI.
At least there is no AI that moves troops around.
It's about scenario design.
To me, it looks like the scenario designer gave a move order to a group of vehicles, but only gave them ONE square to move to. That means all the vehicles will try to move into that one 8x8m square, but there's not enough room for all of them. So they bunch up.
In the end, the designer needs to understand the tools he has to work with.

In my case it got me through about 300 yards of open ground potentially covered by IS-2s & ISU-152s (at 1km+ ranges), so infantry was the last thing on my mind! 

Haven't written something in a long time...
 
Even though I will propably get a lot of Flak for it, here's my 2 cents about Fury:
Basically I think they got the look and feel, as well as the psychology quite well depicted. The tactical situations are outright crap.
On the upside is of course the production design, which is detailed to the max - it depicts a US Army which is fed up with war and worn out from unexpected losses. Thus the rag-tag appearance.
Then there is the psychology, which from my stand point is pretty well depicted. What some here call clichés is really just what happens with people in war. Every human being has a good and a bad side. And in every war the bad side is brought out and has to be lived to the maximum, because that is the demand war places on the individual. This is something very disturbing for most people, because generally people think of themselves as good. They are shocked by the amount of violence they are actually capable of, because we all learn to harness these violent urges in society until we forget about them. And it is hard to stay human to some level while you have to act out your bad side all the time just to stay alive.
Now look at 'War Daddy' (Brad Pitt) and his crew.  His character is based on Sgt. 'War Daddy' Poole, one of the most sucsessful Tank Commanders in WWII. He and his crew served from 6/1944 until 9/1944 when they got shot up by an Panther. In this time they officially destroyed 12 tanks, 258 AFVs and killed over 1000 German soldiers. Now what do you think it does with your soul, your psyche to kill a thousand men in 81 days? You become torn. It doesn't really matter if it is justified killing or not, you have slaughtered massive amounts of your kind. I think this is what this film depicts brilliantly.
'War Daddy' knows his job, he is able to kill without hesitation. That is what he and his crew need to do to survive. And he knows the new guy will lower theyr chances, if he f***s up. So he teaches him how to kill, it's a must. A live doesn't matter much in mechanized war. Especially one of a German Soldier, why should it after killing a thousand of them?!? So he uses one as training object. By the way it happened in real-life, too. When the Jagdtiger-Companies arrived at the front in 1945, they had their sucsesses. Destroyed about 50 Shermans in a couple of days. Afterwards the GIs were very angry that the Germans still made such a needless stand, when they had clearly lost already, and about 200-300 POWs got shot im a couple of incidents.
Its the nature of war, I don't blame any GI for that (I am German FYI).
For me, 'Fury' shows the nature of war* and what it does to the soul perfectly.
 
*(full spectrum, mechanized warfare, insurgencies are a different thing)

@MOS:96B2P
Don't know the answer either but my guess is if you look at the other unit objective types ('destroy' or 'destroy all) and then count how many times in game (spoiler alert .... zero  .... spoiler ends ) that you have been notified that you have scored some points ('destroy') or that you have scored all of the points ('destroy all') then the deduction has to be that unit objectives don't provide feedback during execute. You only get that at the endgame screen.
So for my money (not much) @Rinaldi is bang on - this is all about what you say in the briefing and to be honest I think this is the way it should be.
To go into the tradecraft of it (because I know you're all over this), the type of mission that I think (and hope) that you're designing is some sort of recce activity. So to step back to the planning stage, the '2' shop will have looked at signature equipment and the time and space issue to formulate NAIs and the (off the top of my head) SIRs which are effectively the mission/specified tasks for the recce element. So that would translate into something fairly concrete to work with eg:
Mission:
1 Recce Sect is to cover NAI 1 from 010800Z to 011200ZMar18 in order to locate the enemy main axis.
The task verb is probably a bit shaky but hey ho ...
The specified tasks or other bits of the order would then depend on the situation but of course would be driven by that initial IPB and the resultant collection plan etc. This is all stuff  that you can plug into the mission briefing for the scenario in the game. Of course there is always a balance to strike with what goes in and what doesn't but it is always best to work on the assumption that with a spot objective that you probably need to be fairly specific. Fortunately I don't think this is overly unrealistic because there are plenty of things you can do with this sort of mission to spice things up and add surprises and challenges for the player eg
Have an NAI where the player has to spot everything that rolls through it in a particular timeframe. Potential challenges for the player are:
Getting eyes on to the NAI without getting whacked or spotted on the infiltration. Getting eyes on the NAI at the time specified. Extracting from the NAI to friendly territory without getting whacked or spotted on the exfiltration. Getting to friendly territory in a specified time frame. I understand the balance will be trickier to achieve when victory depends on seeing one thing only or identifying a CRP or similar but you can still build the same dynamics around the mission in terms of:
Getting there and back. Being seen or not seen. Being zapped or not zapped. Anyways ... @George MC, who I can see has already answered is more of an expert than I am because I know that he has actually used spot objectives in Mission/Campaign design whereas I haven't to my recollection (Mission 1 of George's KG Schroif has spotting as part of the mix) .... so, if you've got this far then perhaps my answer is .... whatever George says
 

This is an interesting way to use the spot objectives.  I think you also used spot objectives once for friendly reinforcements getting spotted by the OpFor.  So there was a choice to commit friendly reserves for a point penalty or fight on with out committing them.  I will probably steal this idea from you .  
 
As usual good point.  While I was hoping the spot was messaged to the player and I was just doing it wrong I never stopped to think how it would be messaged.  Or more to the point, how often it would be messaged.  If there were dozens of OpFor spot objectives or the entire OpFor combat team was a spot objective, as @George MC has used them, I can see where the multiple notifications might get annoying.  Looks like everything is working as intended.   
 
And in that deduction lay the answer I was looking for and failed to see.  Thanks for the spoiler alert .   Everything is working as intended and as @Rinaldisaid up top, it will have to be handled in a well worded briefing. 
I'm not working on conventional recon activity but a counter insurgency scenario where hopefully intelligence gathering will play a useful role in identifying where the Separatist will strike next.   Blue force can use this intelligence to protect infrastructure and hunt down Separatist columns.   It is also heavy with triggers and features exit zones.  Not a spoiler but just a generic example: If the Separatists are successful at taking control of the power plant (even temporarily) this "triggers" two more attacks, one on checkpoint #3 and one on the radio station.  If either or both of those attacks are successful then they trigger additional Separatist activity.................  This in addition to timed events that will happen anyways.  Having fun with this.
Thanks for the detailed second half of your response.  I copied it and saved it to my scenario designed notes for future reference.         
 
 

Can't add much more to this I'm afraid. I've really only used the 'spot' objective for ALL enemy units - so the more you spot the more points you get (although unlikely you will spot every enemy unit). 
I also tend to play on 'Elite' so you get hee haw info when you spot or KO stuff.
I would have thoughts, and certainly at the "lower" skill levels that you would get more info re spotting enemy units (assuming this has been actioned by the designer) AND that the 'known to enemy' has been actioned also. If you are not getting that info then I would assume something is up?

Pity we don't have discussions here like this one anymore. Some sharp observations in this thread:
People like Desert Fox (a real expert, I think) seem to have left the building. Or is he still around? This discussion also seems to give a clear answer to the question whether SPW's (APC) were actually used for close combat/frontal assault and whether panzergrenadiere fought from inside the vehicles. Personally I've always been convinced they were, since it would have been a waste not to use them. To be absolutely certain I've just ordered this book about the correct tactical use of SPW's:
Merkblatt 75/10 Schützenpanzerwagen Guderian 1944 Taktisch richtiges Fahren mit Schützenpanzerwagen (reprint of 2016)
 

Good info and some good links to his (many) other useful briefings. 
Was fascinated by the German AT team tactics. Unlike in the game it seems that the Germans didn't just send out 2 man tank killers.  They had a three man security team, a two man smoke team, and a 4 man AT team with the demolition weapons.  Makes perfect sense.  Always thought that the game's Tank Hunter teams were usually useless.  Now one can see how the AT tactics were supposed to work. 
Also, interesting to find out that Panzershrek used to mean "Fear of Tanks" and took on the opposite meaning later in the war.
Love the German accent and good sense of humor of the narrator.
Actually have been watching more of his videos and find them fascinating and would be very useful to anyone interested in how small units functioned.  Eg:
 

Schrullenhaft,
Your voluntary contributions to resolving software issues continue to amaze me. Your presence on this forum is quite the boon to the vast majority of us who don't have a fraction of your deep operating systems knowledge. Whether that contribution is recognized by those to whom your services are offered is a moot point. The rest of us recognize what you do and applaud you for it.
Thanks.

I was able to get the entire CMSF series installed and activated in Windows 10 Pro v. 1709 ('CE'). Avast needed to be disabled in order to install and activate the game/modules. Once the game was installed, activated and patched exceptions were added in Avast for the game directory (the individual game executable files didn't seem to need an explicit exception) and the game needed to be run with 'Run as administrator' privileges. 'Runservice.exe' also did NOT need an Avast exception. Nothing was changed in regards to Windows Defender (whatever version installs with Windows 10 Pro). CMSF was installed to its default directory within the 'Program Files (x86)' directory. Avast did flag the 1.21 patch before it was disabled (something it and a lot of other security programs do with that executable).
No other CM games were installed on this computer. The only security software installed is the free version of Avast and Malwarebytes (and whatever Windows Defender consists of). This computer also didn't have a lot of other software installed. Just browsers, Libre Office, Acrobat, Flash, possibly Java, etc. The 'LicCtrl Service' was started and running with no errors (a key to the problem being seen here). The 'runservice.exe' file is 16,384 bytes in size and has no special attributes set. The 'msvcr71.dll' (a Microsoft C Runtime library DLL) is 348,160 bytes in size, located in the 'C:\Windows' directory and has no special attributes set.