Imperial Grunt

In my opinion, some of the pathing problems, etc, are very good for the game and I don't think players should be able to determine exact paths for their units that they follow to a T. Anyone who has led troops in any capacity knows that this can't be done anywhere except on the grinder for close-order drill.

The caveat is that there are definitely pathing issues to be fixed, especially with bridges and reversing. But in my opinion, I'll deal with those over having complete detailed control.

CM simulates the "friction" factor better than any other war game out there.

Everyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down, which shows how the convoy got lost after leaving the raid objective site due to roadblocks and a comm delay from the surveillance aircraft (these days it would have been a drone) and the convoy. Turns were missed, etc. That is friction.

It certainly can be frustrating to see in CM, but for me, things going wrong, sometimes even absurdly so, is part of the challenge of CM.

**** happens. Deal with it. Continue the fight. Win.

In my opinion, some of the pathing problems, etc, are very good for the game and I don't think players should be able to determine exact paths for their units that they follow to a T. Anyone who has led troops in any capacity knows that this can't be done anywhere except on the grinder for close-order drill.

The caveat is that there are definitely pathing issues to be fixed, especially with bridges and reversing. But in my opinion, I'll deal with those over having complete detailed control.

CM simulates the "friction" factor better than any other war game out there.

Everyone has seen the movie Blackhawk Down, which shows how the convoy got lost after leaving the raid objective site due to roadblocks and a comm delay from the surveillance aircraft (these days it would have been a drone) and the convoy. Turns were missed, etc. That is friction.

It certainly can be frustrating to see in CM, but for me, things going wrong, sometimes even absurdly so, is part of the challenge of CM.

**** happens. Deal with it. Continue the fight. Win.

SPACE LOBSTERS!

SPACE LOBSTERS!

A hyper-realistic HALO mod!
 

Yep, they will plow through, but keep the commands short. Wheeled vehicles risk immobilization when traversing light woods so with longer routes, it appears to me that the AI will default to a less risky route in terms of the chance of getting immobilized. But of the course the AI can't factor in the tactical consequences by doing so.

It's debatable, like the .45 vs 9mm debate!
 
The M27 IAR is a fantastic weapon system and in the offense, is more lethal and lays down more accurate suppressive fire. It tires the gunner far less in the assault and is much more ergonomic to handle and reload. In range tests, IAR gunners outlasted SAW gunners while shooting more 4-6 round bursts on target to provide suppression for their fireteams while in the assault.
 
It was also tested in Afghanistan with very positive reviews from the troops and commanders.
 
But with that said, shortcomings were recognized. It simply cannot provide sustained MG-like suppression like the M249 SAW can. This is fully acknowledged and is the reason why every company still has 9 M249s as T/E equipment to be employed as the company commander sees fit. That has essentially evolved to 3 M27 IARs and one M249 SAW per squad. 
 
It may also be a secret plot by the Corps to quietly move away from the M16/M4 to a rifle that is basically a souped up HK416. If I was Commandant for a day, I'd do this immediately!

It's debatable, like the .45 vs 9mm debate!
 
The M27 IAR is a fantastic weapon system and in the offense, is more lethal and lays down more accurate suppressive fire. It tires the gunner far less in the assault and is much more ergonomic to handle and reload. In range tests, IAR gunners outlasted SAW gunners while shooting more 4-6 round bursts on target to provide suppression for their fireteams while in the assault.
 
It was also tested in Afghanistan with very positive reviews from the troops and commanders.
 
But with that said, shortcomings were recognized. It simply cannot provide sustained MG-like suppression like the M249 SAW can. This is fully acknowledged and is the reason why every company still has 9 M249s as T/E equipment to be employed as the company commander sees fit. That has essentially evolved to 3 M27 IARs and one M249 SAW per squad. 
 
It may also be a secret plot by the Corps to quietly move away from the M16/M4 to a rifle that is basically a souped up HK416. If I was Commandant for a day, I'd do this immediately!

It's debatable, like the .45 vs 9mm debate!
 
The M27 IAR is a fantastic weapon system and in the offense, is more lethal and lays down more accurate suppressive fire. It tires the gunner far less in the assault and is much more ergonomic to handle and reload. In range tests, IAR gunners outlasted SAW gunners while shooting more 4-6 round bursts on target to provide suppression for their fireteams while in the assault.
 
It was also tested in Afghanistan with very positive reviews from the troops and commanders.
 
But with that said, shortcomings were recognized. It simply cannot provide sustained MG-like suppression like the M249 SAW can. This is fully acknowledged and is the reason why every company still has 9 M249s as T/E equipment to be employed as the company commander sees fit. That has essentially evolved to 3 M27 IARs and one M249 SAW per squad. 
 
It may also be a secret plot by the Corps to quietly move away from the M16/M4 to a rifle that is basically a souped up HK416. If I was Commandant for a day, I'd do this immediately!

Yep. And other weapons.

Yes, this is a great concept. PBEM games, at least in my experience take longer than a week. If I had the time, I'd love to participate.

Yes, this is a great concept. PBEM games, at least in my experience take longer than a week. If I had the time, I'd love to participate.

Yes, this is a great concept. PBEM games, at least in my experience take longer than a week. If I had the time, I'd love to participate.

Player vs player is the highest form of CM. The game truly becomes a test of tactics and overcoming the friction of facing a thinking opposition.

As far as your questions go, it's really up to how you want to play. I prefer company or less sized games for instance. I also prefer meeting engagements.

PBEM is the most reliable way to play multi-player however it does take awhile. I hope that one day BFC makes playing via TCP/LAN so easy a grunt can do it because I think that style of head to head play would really take off.

I can't speak for how the US Army organizes it's Air Defense units but I can speak to how the USMC does.

Each MEF has a Low Altitude Air Defense (LAAD) Battalion in the Marine Air Control Group (MACG) of the Marine Air Wing (MAW). Each LAAD Battalion possesses a Headquarters and Service Battery and 2 Firing Batteries. The Firing Batteries each possess a Battery Headquarters and 3 Firing Platoons. The Firing Platoons each have a Platoon Headquarters and 3 Firing Sections. Each Firing Section has a Section Headquarters Element and 5 two man Firing Teams.

A LAAD Battalion can field 90 Stinger Teams. A firing battery, 45 Teams, a Platoon 15 Teams and a Section 5 Teams. A LAAD Bn has 60 Avenger vehicles, which is 30 per firing battery, 10 per platoon, 5 per section. The usual employment of a firing battery is 30 Avenger and 15 man portable Stinger teams but the mix of systems can be changed according to the mission, for example to support a helicopterborne assault, only Stinger teams would be employed. To support a mechanized unit, all of the Avengers would  be employed.
 
By doctrine, a LAAD Platoon will normally be deployed to support a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU), a battery will usually support a Marine Expeditionary Brigade (MEB), and a full LAAD battalion will support a Marine Expeditionary Force (MEF). The majority of the LAAD elements will be in direct support of ground combat elements in a scenario like Black Sea, although some will be allocated to covering logistical units, HQs, FARPs, etc...

Currently MEUs routinely deploy with only a LAAD Section vice a platoon due to the lack of a significant air threat and a Marine IAD network is usually only established at the MEB level and up.

LAAD Units are usually employed in either general support (GS) of the MAGTF, or in direct support (DS) of a particular unit. Employed in the general support role, LAAD units position Stinger Teams to best support the entire MAGTF based on the MAGTF Commander's established air defense priorities. In the direct support (DS) they position Stinger teams to best support the unit they are in DS of, based on the guidance of the supported commander.

So hopefully for the USMC module, Avenger vehicles will be running around on CM:BS maps.

It's been requested already!

So your saying that CMx3 will start out with...
 
CM: I Corps, 1968
 
Complete with helicopters and F-4 Phantoms dropping napalm!

I'll jump in on this one.

First of all, keep in mind that the AI does not treat MOUT any different than normal field operations, so you cannot expect urban tactics from the AI.

Secondly, realize that with buildings and houses, what you see is not completely representative of the architecture. The walls and floors and whether there are windows or doors are the only hard facts. The doors are the most exact but windows are fairly representative. Interior rooms, walls, furniture, etc is all abstracted. When modular buildings are put together to make larger buildings you will get actual interior walls to work with however.

To answer your questions:

1) Troops on a floor can spot one floor above (and below) them. Doesn't always make sense so just imagine a stairway firefight or some kind of interior open ceiling, etc.

2) If you send troops up to the roof they will move to the roof directly and not spend much time spotting on each particular floor. Could obviously lead to a disaster. If a adjoining walls have a door or windows then troops may spot and fire into the next structure through that wall. You can also order them to fire there as well.

With that said, there are many things you can do as a player, although it will require more supervision on your part to make it happen. The following basic CM procedures really help for urban warfare tactics.

1) Don't send troops anywhere you think an enemy may be. If you think a building is occupied, send steel first. 120mm main gun rounds excel for this task but you use what is available. I can't stress effective suppression enough. As your troops are actually getting close to entering a building, switch to small arms/LMG fire only. The game assumes that detailed small unit fire coordination is taking place but HE rounds, if not lifted, will cause fratricide.

2) Use breaching charges as much as possible. Blind walls without any doors and windows are perfect for this. You can breach between floors and adjoining walls as well. Breaching charges not only make entry points, but they suppress enemy troops on the opposite side.

3) Use smoke screens to help screen movement. It won't block thermal sights but not every weapon system uses thermal sights.

Never just move entire squads at once into possibly hostile buildings. Use the fire teams, approach using suppressive fire and quick bounds to get close. You can move a team right up to a wall and stop them there and sometimes they will spot and engage enemies inside...but not always. When they go in through the door, usually any unsuppressed enemies will shoot first. Urban combat is dangerous!

Don't get frustrated when you see your guys run past enemies inside a building. Like I said above, interiors are all abstracted.

The tough part is not the MOUT itself but deciding which buildings you want to expend resources on and which you can assume to not be occupied. A bad decision or assumption on your part could mean many deaths for your valiant troops. It's your call commander.