Apocal

I've defeated T-90s frontally.
 
With my GI Joe kung fu grip.  
 
True story.  I am not making this up.  I am not at all a kind of biased source.

Or the player should have reasonable cues that the enemy will arrive "somewhere" vs "anywhere" 

Lucas, I don't think you are getting this.  No one is complaining about enemy reinforcements per se, but if they spawn in on top of the player it is a flaw in the scenario.  They should either be spawned into an area that the player won't have reached yet, or they should start the game in dead ground and be triggered by player movement on the battlefield.

By doctrine at least in the modern US Army, you will find Lieutenants leading platoons, Captains leading companies, and Lieutenant Colonels leading battalions. You can go one down with rank if you have the Executive Officer in charge of a company or battalion, or in a platoon you might see a Sergeant First Class leading if they don't have enough officers.You will find them leading from the front up to battalion level, although you probably wouldn't see the company commander or battalion commander running point in an assault. They would be co-located with one of the elements (probably not an assault or breaching element in most cases) and that would be specified in the operations order.
 
Unless you are going to include battalion or brigade command post elements & staffs in a scenario, you probably won't see a lot of Majors leading units unless the XO is in charge of a battalion or a new battalion commander Major hasn't been promoted to LTC yet. Most of your staff guys at the battalion level are Captains with a Major or senior Captain as an operations officer, and at the brigade level staff you have a lot more Majors and now some Lieutenant Colonels on the staff. It's not that staff guys are cowards any more than anyone else can be a coward, it's just not their job to be out "in a foxhole". If I'm a battalion or brigade commander, I want my logistics officer back in the TOC getting me more ammo, not out in a foxhole with a rifle.
 
Most armies today have similar structure, although it varies by army to the level of initiative encouraged at each level. Most western all-volunteer armies encourage leadership initiative at the lowest level and their training and doctrine embrace that concept. Some former Warsaw Pact armies are working towards that goal. I spent a year with the Hungarian Defense Forces in Afghanistan, and I can tell you I was very surprised at the fact that their NCO's weren't used to having a voice when it came to operations. They were used to doing what they were told by their officers and were not used to taking charge of tactical situations. They were very good soldiers, it just wasn't in their doctrine or training for young NCO's to take charge if the lieutenant was there.

I am speaking as a military professional, former Cavalry Platoon Leader, Troop XO, Battalion and Squadron Planner, and Tank Company Commander when I say troops appearing through arkane majicks on your flank is not right.  
 
The "board" artificially conceals the nature of terrain and battlefield to the player.  If we consider the edges of the map to be something like say, Company or Battalion boundaries, I'll still have maps and graphics of those locations.  I'll also have the greater situational awareness coming off of the Battalion/Brigade Net in terms of what's happening around the battlefield.  Further I'll have an idea of what the higher mission is and what's going on to my flanks, and very likely someone else (even if I was the flank company, there's good to high odds the Battalion or Brigade scouts are screening us) will have either let me know to cover them (something closer to "and X Company (your company) represents the farthest left unit" vs "YOU ARE OUR FLANK CPT TIMMY IT ALL DEPENDS ON YOU!!!").  Further if I was the farthest flanking unit I'd sit down and look at the AO outside of my boundaries to see just what might influence my battlespace from the outside.
 
This is where scenario design becomes super important.  Bad scenarios just hit you on the flank and pull a Lucas in claiming I need to secure every thing ever because every direction could possibly hide an enemy tank company.  Good scenerios instead sit down and give you the complex terrain to look at and have to plan for. You want the player to think "those woods on my right look like they might hide enemy forces, or allow infantry to infiltrate into my AO without me seeing it.  I'm going to leave a section of 3rd PLT to ovewatch it", rather than in an open field suddenly there's a dozen BMPs.
 
Another even more interesting one would be to give you information to make reasonable choices in the briefing.  Example:  "Enemy reserves are located on OBJ Thresher to your east, and are expected to be committed once our main effort is identified.  S2 estimates they may use RTE Gold or RTE Black, located at A1 and A2 on your map, and have a response time of approximately 20 minutes" 
 
Or just leaving roads coming onto the map from the flanks, and making enemy forces appear from there, it's likely the enemy reserves arrives suddenly on a road.  It's doubtful they rapidly appear from rough or wooded terrain (if mounted).  
 
These are all reasonable ways for the wargamer to be forced to make choices concerning their flank security.  The scenario designer should view the player as a training audience, who should be rewarded for reasonable responses to stimuli.  Surprise flanks simply frustrate the player, and instead of encouraging him to make smart choices based on good observations and sound tactics, instead force him to play in the almost comical state in which you either accept losing a scenario and having to replay it because 3/101st Shock Tank Guards Battalion emerged from a tunnel network in an otherwise empty field, or expending 50-60% of your overall forces covering fields that are actually occupied just out of sight by your sister units, or something else requiring no overwatch.    
 
The player has to know what's on their flanks to make interesting and tactical choices about those flanks.  Tank Companies don't drive across the battlefield in big circles, guns pointed in 360 degrees in case the enemy appears FROM ANYWHERE.  It's imperative the scenario designer give the player some sort of situational awareness to let them play realistically.
 
And as a further textual wandering, enemy forces in games should have sort of...like a story to go with them.  They need a beginning.  How did they get to the battlefield, why they are there, what they hope to do.  Then a middle, what their plan is for the battlefield.  And then an end(s), what they hope to do if they're successful, or unsuccessful. 
 
Each one of these needs to make sense, and should reflect the same amount of knowledge as the player team has about the enemy.  The designer knows the blue player is going to enter from the NW corner of this open field.  Why would the red team know the exact spawn location of the blue player though? 
 
I'd suggest flawed, but realistic doctrinally sound enemy deployments are more interesting than playing against some enemy force led by insidious commanders with ESP who know all the faults and locations of the player forces.  

Let's say in the real world you have a ridge line on your left flank where you could place your reserve tanks hull down to deal with anything that came from that direction.  Can you tell me how you can use them to protect your flanks in the game version of that scenario, when they can't see off the map edge and enemy reinforcements spawn right on top of them?
 
Of course you can't, so it seems pointlessly bone headed to argue that a design flaw in a scenario is somehow replicating real world circumstances.

I think you misunderstood. I don't think people are saying that reinforcements are unrealistic or unfair. What people are saying is that having the enemies teleport on top of the player is unrealistic and unfair.

I'm not sure, probably both.

I just want to second this. While I do agree with the original post, to me, I would use this command much, much more frequently.

This was actually proposed in the beta world and at this time its a NO GO.
 
However it may be addressed again when the next module comes around. There are many advocates amongst the beta testers.

I hope this is in the right place - I don't see an appropriate subforum
 
Hey folks, Chris "tyrspawn" Krause here! some of you might remember me from my walkthrough/let's play of the original CMSF, CMSF: Nato and my beta video AARs of Normandy:
 
CMSF NATO videos
CMSF videos
Combat Mission Battle for Normandy Beta videos
 
I am now making a series of videos on Black Sea! My videos will focus on:
1. Discussion of doctrine, military tactics, systems and military history
2. Unedited gameplay footage in WEGO (turn based) - my other videos were real time, but I discovered how cool WEGO is during my Normandy AARs
3. An ongoing review and commentary on the game itself - i'm playing everything for the first time as you see me do it
4. Blackboard style discussions of what went wrong - essentially an after acton report
 
The new video series will be posted here:
YOUTUBE PLAYLIST
 
 
 
The first video is a campaign introduction and tutorial on how to properly perform a terrain analysis and operations order (in brief) for the TASKFORCE 3-69 campaign:

 
 
 
You can look forward to the mission playthrough being posted within the next couple days

For your spotting issues, try sending a two men scout team ahead of your infantry by using the split squad button under the administrative commands tab. Then keep the rest of the platoon behind. How far behind depends on the terrain, it could be only 30 seconds behind in wooded areas where visibility is low or a whole minute or two, sometimes more, when crossing a field with long lines of sight and no cover for instance.
 
The important thing is to make sure the rest of your men can spot whatever fires at your scouts. So if you reach a treeline for instance, have the scout stop there and wait for the rest of your infantry and proceed as before.
 
Also keep some units like battalion or company commanders or forward observers or snipers well behind where they can see the battlefield. The equipment and in particular the optics (night vision, infra red, even binoculars or sniper rifle scope) your pixel troops carry is important as well as experience, i.e green, regular, veterans. Also units that are not moving will spot better than units that are moving.
 
You need to keep these things in mind.

This is the third thread I've seen lately asking about recon vehicles, so I'm just going to use the same response
 
"All recon vehicles are challenging to use in Combat Mission because they are intended for operational or grand tactical level reconnaissance, ie. to report to brigade HQ if there's enemy forces in an area the size of a CM map and if they are moving, blocking roads or such. After that they're just poorly armed and armoured vehicles with slightly better sensors than usual and should be used accordingly, ie. with special care."
 
If you have a huge map with large unoccupied areas then dedicated recon vehicles with good sensors may be of actual nominal use. But if not, ignore that they are recon vehicles and just consider their combat capabilities. Also be prepared to leave some of the vehicles in a safe place and use the crews for foot recon if it looks like a trap. Another thing is to think that cavalry's first objective is to determine where the enemy isn't, so don't send them headlong against where you suspect they will be but use them to secure flanks and approach avenues. Just sometimes you don't have that luxury...

It seems that the best way to do an arty mission is to set the duration for Maximum. If you don't need to use all the arty, then just kill the mission.
 
What purpose does it serve to order a mission that's smaller than the Max when there's no penalty for calling in a Max strike and then ending it short?

A Gavin is less a vehicle and more an avatar of spartanlike air warrior battlebox ideals. It is our only hope.

We-Go & Iron.  I don't play on iron because I think it is difficult.  I like iron because IMO it makes it easier to tell what the Situational awareness of individual units are.  At the iron setting when you click on a fire team you will see only what that fire team is aware of to include friendly units.  This aids in the understanding of C2 and how C2, or the lack of it, plays a role in how that fire team may react to different situations.          

That Abrams looks under inflated. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tE_QYDYcj6w
 
Doesn't make you fear the T-90 too awfully much.

Yes, over a year ago.

Reiter - don't use slow.  You aren't trying to spot him *while* you are moving, you are trying to get the movement itself completely over and done with as soon as possible.  All the real action happens after you halt.
 
On covered arcs, yes they have to be wide enough.  The enemy will move, and if he is outside of the arc when you halt, you will ignore him until he drills you.  Still can't do without them, however.  Armored arc is needed to avoid distraction by nearer infantry targets before you have LOS to the enemy tank.  They also let you "train" the turret to the desired bearing without restricting your tank to driving straight in that direction - which would set up no side angle (worse protection) and generally require more fiddly tank rotation (and thus delay) before the movement.  You want the movement itself to be in a completely straight line that makes sense on your local terrain, to be clean and fast and involve no slow rotation movements.  The desired effect is just - he physically can't see anything, he physically can't see anything, then you are clear into LOS moving briskly and already halting, you have stopped a split second later, unbuttoned, and turret trained directly at him.  That still won't *ensure* you get first shot.  But especially if he is pointed elsewhere, has any other targets to look at, or is buttoned - it maximizes your chances.

No, fights against the AI aren't very representative. And losses aren't taken by only one side. But that aside, with SPWs and 2 MG42s per squad, what portion of those 200 infantry caused enemy losses do you honestly think were inflicted by the plain riflemen with their K98s? Because the infantry part of that force sports well over 100 full machineguns, between the dismounts of 4 companies (72 LMGs at 2 per squad, plus up to 16 HMGs at 4 per company) - each of which averaged less than 2 kills. There are something like 290 K98s, plus around 50 MP40s.

We aren't discussing the effectiveness of bullets, but of ordinary riflemen. Most of the losses from bullets - themselves only half in your example and lower than that whole war, due to artillery causing more than their share outside CM like settings - are coming from the full MGs. When the infantry is Russian instead of MG42s, the share of full MG hits may be lower - but the share of PPsH hits will be higher. Again, not ordinary riflemen. In your example, I would guess 2/3rds to 3/4ths came from the MGs and the MPs - and that leaves only a third to a quarter - of the infantry 45% or so - for the rifles. Meaning 40 or 50, being generous - with 290 trying. Meaning in your AI buthchering wipe out win, your riflemen might have gotten one sixth or one seventh of one hit, each.

And the riflemen you were wiping out, I'll wager, got practically nothing. Because you run up kill totals that high in one fight with a firce that size only in lopsided victories. But both sides can't be above average in that fashion. So those one sixth to one seventh successes must be averaged in with all those ordinary riflemen clay pidgeons you are tallying. Giving an average performance of a mere rifleman in your battle right around one hit for every 13 present - with a 50% chance of getting shot trying (lol). Expected lifetime hits per engaged rifleman, from the time the balloon goes up to the time a shell or bullet chain saw cuts him in half, 1 over 7.

Riflemen are mostly just targets. The math is entirely unforgiving. You don't get to walk onto a battlefield full of vastly superior weapons and pull your own weight, since one side limps off at least half alive, and it is the superior weapons, not the poor bloody private with his dinky bolt gun, doing the slaughtering.

Snipers are in the superior hunting weapon class in that unforgiving analysis, ordinary riflemen are on the receiving end of all of it. If having a scope and hunting by stealth from cover lets the scoped sharpshooter bag one dude before he snuffs it, it raised his effectiveness 7 fold. Maybe 10, in fact, because the above is still low balling the role of the artillery.

The way the US Army puts it in training, bluntly enough, is that armor does the fighting, artillery does the killing, and infantry does the dying...

No, since the weapons being used in Eastern Ukraine would (85% or more) be right at home during the late Soviet-Afghanistan War period.

Yeah, I've played Steel Beasts. And operated modern laser-based fire control systems.
 
If you lase a static position, it doesn't do anything to the lead at all, the laser only provides range. The necessary lead is computed based on turret's rate of angular change when the gunner holds his reticule over the target and paired with the (fixed) range number that the laser provides. You can dump lead and engage a second nearby target without needing to lase again, especially when firing flat trajectory sabot.

If this is the case, most of our UAVs and all of our attack helos would be unusable as well.

I sailed around on a boat for awhile. That was fun.
I went somehwere hot for awhile. That wasn't fun.