Bil Hardenberger

Indeed.. if Ian had kept his HQ unit mounted he would have had radio comms to these BMPs and it wouldn't have been an issue for him. These rules do force you to think more in terms of "formation" rather than "individual units"... the new rules even more so.

Yeah.. the combined fire of those three BMPs was pretty ugly on my end.

At least with the objectives, you usually know where to find the enemy. Seriously, defeat the enemy and you don't have to worry about the objectives, I also try to stay focused on the enemy rather than the objective(s), but the objectives are handy, as I mentioned above as orientation tools as many players go straight for them. Bil

Wanted to get back to the original question.. my point of view usually aligns with most others: I want to design and execute my own battle plan, so any plan outlined in the briefing I usually ignore. HOWEVER, if the scenario is historical and the designer is trying to show the historical actions and is attempting to recreate the feel of the actual action, then I will try to follow those instructions. Also if it is a training type mission, often its important to follow the instructions n the briefing in order to "get the lesson". Bil

@IanL, FYI some of your images aren't showing up. Nice write up!

If there are no more comments or suggestions for these rules I will tentatively call them final for now and move on to play testing. I have two games using these rules lined up , one with @IanL which won't start for a bit yet. I wouldn't mind if a few of you wanted to give them a try and post back here with your results... so pair up and give 'em a shot.

Thanks for posting that @Kaunitz.. I think that description shows that this unit did not rush into an engagement, but took their time and set up "the play"... this paid off for them and it can do the same in game. Excellent example of information disparity between opponents, distraction (MG fire) and hammer (Stug) against an enemy that obviously had little situational awareness. It could/should be used as a lesson to players of CM to take their time, ensure you have all your pieces in place before jumping into any action and to increase your chances of success by being smart and deliberate with your actions. The tactic shown in this narrative could be used in CM, many of us have probably fired at a tank with an MG or riflemen in order to distract it and then moved a tank (or AT team) into position to deal the blow... I love these types of tactical descriptions. Thanks again for sharing. Bil

Okay, I have updated the Rules.. see the Initial Post to see the edits, or open the PDF, as this has also been updated. This edit (version 2f) contains all of the edits made to the Attached Units and the Higher Echelon HQ and HQ Casualty rules... a few other minor clean up edits were made as well. Bil

Well we can't cover every contingency.. but I see your point. I am considering giving autonomous units/platoons etc. on a recon mission an exemption to the Area Fire rules as well. They are a special case to be sure. Bil

Okay @MOS:96B2P following are my edits for the Attached Unit C2 check, and for the Higher Echelon HQ Units and HQ Casualty Rules: ATTACHED UNITS - If a support team has been attached to a formation other than its organic HQ, it is considered to be within C2 as long as it can pass a manual C2 check to the HQ unit it has been attached to. Manual C2 Check - At least 2 of 3 of following conditions MUST be met: The HQ it is checking against MUST be the Attached HQ unit It is within 50 meters of the HQ Unit (Voice C2) AND/OR: It has a clear Line of Sight (LOS) to said higher echelon HQ out to 96 meters (Visual C2) This manual check is performed by placing a target line from the unit to the center of the HQ unit, if it is blue and unbroken then the unit has clear LOS HEADQUARTERS UNITS A unit may check for C2 against a higher echelon HQ. The game will control this feature If not in C2 to its immediate superior, but it is to the superior above that, it will show on the unit’s control panel as being in either Sound, Visual or both C2 range to the higher echelon HQ unit HQ Casualty: If a formation loses its HQ or its officer as a casualty: the XO Team (etc.) if it contains an officer will take over. The game will control this handoff unless there isn’t another officer to take over… …in that case the lowest numbered surviving team/squad or vehicle will take over... in these cases the C2 check will need to be performed manually as described in Rule 5. Really appreciate your help ironing these down.. I actually learned a few things about the game today..

Awesome appreciate the detail.. I love that the game takes all this into account.. that'll make it easier. I want to mull over the rest of your post before responding.. I already did some tests of the higher echelon HQs as noted in my post above yours, so yeah that also will make things easier. Bil

By the way @MOS:96B2P I noticed you are using an older version of my icons there.. I do have a newer more advanced set available at this link... these are threat based so you can have the opposing force always be represented with the diamond shape symbology: I found it impossible to test the Bluefor units as every time I selected one every unit had a radio. It is possible that is might be a bug.

Okay, specifically for @MOS:96B2P, and @General Liederkranz... I just checked this in two games and interestingly, it works great in the WW2 games (CMFI anyway) but not in CMSF2. Maybe its because I was working with Syrians and they don't have this feature as part of their toolbox? Does anybody have any answers for that? As for in CMFI... it works beautifully. In the following image, the PzShreck Team is not in C2 to either its immediate superior (3rd Platoon) or to its Company HQ (2d Company). Note the target line in each image will show the range.. in this case the 2d Company HQ is at 53m: In the following image, the PzShreck Team IS in C2 (Voice only) to its Company HQ (2d Company - 43m): In the following image, the PzShreck Team IS in C2 (Voice & Visual) to its Company HQ (2d Company - 23m): So that was very interesting and I'm not sure why I haven't noticed it before..maybe I had and deleted the info from my brain's HD. Anyway, I also tested this against the A Company HQ not in the same hierarchy and the Team acted as expected, it would not link C2 to that HQ team as it was effectively out of network... however using the Battalion HQ it could indeed get in C2 to it as expected (in network). So this is great. I will be editing my rules to reflect this. Still wonder what's up with the Syrians in CMSF2 though...

Interesting. Thank you. I will need to do some tests and consider this. Bil

I don't think this is something that is really clear in-game is it? At least I have never noticed a unit tracing a C2 line to a higher echelon HQ in game before. I think for clarity we still need to find a technique that will work to everybody's satisfaction. Exactly.. we will come back to this later in this post... I really appreciate the link, and I always suspected this.. but couldn't remember seeing it in action. That will simplify things somewhat... I do have one question though.. does this happen if JUST the Commander is a casualty or does the entire HQ Team have to become casualties? I wouldn't want a radio operator commanding my platoon. Yeah, I will need to fix that.. should be two legs (one waypoint) in all of these out of C2 situations now. I have tremendous respect for you and what you have done for CM and helping to understand the depth of the game.. so this means a lot. DETERMINING C2 For Attached Units & to Higher Echelon HQ Okay, now on to determining C2 against higher echelon HQs or for Attached Units. @MOS:96B2P, I played around with your method (use a target arc fan to see if the HQ unit falls within 50m, but it had one drawback... it did not return a determination as to whether the HQ unit was within LOS or not regardless of whether it was within 50m.. the following examples should help explain how I think we should do these checks: I suggest we do this with a Target order, it will be IN C2 if the following three Conditions are met: The higher echelon HQ MUST be within the unit's direct chain of command (if checking against a Company HQ then that must be that unit's Company HQ, a neighboring Company is not eligible) - For Attached Units the HQ it is checking against MUST be the HQ unit it has been attached to It is within 50m of the higher echelon HQ It has a clear Line of Sight (LOS) to said higher echelon HQ EXAMPLES: CHECKING AGAINST HIGHER ECHELON HQ: In the following example, this split Infantry Squad is not in C2 to its immediate superior (2nd Platoon HQ), but it's Company HQ (hierarchically just above its Platoon HQ so within its chain of command)... ...the 1st Team checks LOS to it's Company HQ... Condition 1 IS satisfied (this is the unit's direct Company HQ) Condition 2 is NOT satisfied as the team is 51m from the Company HQ Condition 3 is NOT satisfied as it does not have clear LOS to the Company HQ This unit is NOT in C2 ...the 2nd Team checks LOS to it's Company HQ... Condition 1 IS satisfied (this is the unit's direct Company HQ) Condition 2 IS satisfied as the team is 40m from the Company HQ Condition 3 is NOT satisfied as it does not have clear LOS to the Company HQ This unit is NOT in C2 ATTACHED UNIT CHECKING C2: In this next example, this mortar team has been cross-attached to a different platoon...the Mortar Team checks LOS to that HQ... Condition 1 IS satisfied as this is the HQ it has been Attached to Condition 2 IS satisfied as the team is 20m from the Platoon HQ Condition 3 IS satisfied as it has clear LOS to the Platoon HQ (Blue Target line) This unit IS in C2

@Aurelius , it was indeed intended for Recon Platoons. How often is an entire Recon company performing a reconnaissance mission in a CM game? If it was then it too would be exempt. However IMO if that company/platoon is performing a normal combat function (attacking or defending, etc) then it should not be exempt primarily because it will then fall under the same chain of command (with all the constraints that entails) as all other formations supporting the main mission. Bil

This is already in the rules. Under exceptions is Recon platoons performing a recon mission.

Thanks @MOS:96B2P you make a compelling argument and I am leaning towards your way of thinking re: using the target arc to check C2... let me play around a bit. In the end it doesn't matter what method we use as long as its simple in execution. Bil

@Aurelius, I found this document which gives an excellent summary of the current (as of 2017) state of the Russian Army and NCOs. I have bolded what I think are the important parts: Bil

For myself, I only wish your posts were in shorter more easily digestible lengths.. but I might be alone in that. I tend to keep my individual posts on the shorter side.. but even then some can get quite long and detailed so its a tough one. As for the captions on the images.. font is too small for my eyes and I don't read them, mainly because I don't tend to click on images. Bil

@Aurelius, @IICptMillerII, @Sgt.Squarehead, and @IanL, really appreciating the discussion. I ran out of likes for the day so I will have to catch you tomorrow... someone remind me. heheh.. I do not believe I am wrong with regards to the quality of Russian (or Soviet in WW2 and CMA) NCOs and lower leadership. They operate at an echelon different from the Western style armies that do have high quality professional NCOs and use initiative as a rule rather than as an exception and where officers and warrant officers fill the traditional role of NCOs in western style armies. There actually might be a case for loosening up on the national restrictions for WW2 Soviets for high quality formations as they did build up a very high quality NCO corps.. this was pissed away after the war however. I am not as comfortable with the modern Russian/Serbian/Ukrainian, etc. style of battlefield leadership... if they have gone to a more western philosophy than in my day then I am willing to loosen up those restrictions. I would like to see some documentation on that fact though, because when I was an Intel analyst (80s and early 90s) it was not the case and that type of systemic change is difficult. This is an outstanding discussion and I wanted to thank you personally Aurelius for jumping in and sharing your experiences with us. Bil

Ian, Rule 2 covers direct targeting: 2. TARGETING - No direct targeting allowed, units must find their own targets

One final edit.. initial post has been updated... the PDF has also been updated. I just got off the phone with a friend of mine and we talked through the rules, doing that showed me where I needed to make some edits here and there.. those are included in this version. Also: Added HQ Units to the exception to the movement rule Changed the order of Succession to include XO teams (etc.) as long as they contain an officer in the event of a Commander casualty. I am hoping this is the last version for a while. Unless someone else comes up with a good argument... Bil

Well, even that you will take one step at a time.. and will not want to rush it. To be honest I don't know what anybody would put themselves through playing on a map like that. I really do hate urban combat and avoid it whenever possible.

This initial post has been updated with the latest iteration (v2d). Changes in this version: Moved the Intelligence Rule (no hit text) to the Advanced/Optional page Changed the movement rule in the following way: Squads, teams, and vehicles NOT IN C2 to their immediate superior can ONLY plot movement paths with one waypoint (two legs) OPTIONAL - CMSF 2 Irregular Forces Movement – these units can ONLY plot movement paths with ONE waypoint (two legs) regardless of their C2 status NOTE: This rule is intended to simulate the command and control difficulties with ill-trained irregular forces I always meant to add (and forgot again with this version), that HQ Units (HQ units only, not XO Teams, Command Squads, etc.) can always plot an unlimited number of movement legs (waypoints). That is why they are not included in the rule language shown above, but it isn't clear. They always have freedom of maneuver within their area of responsibility with no limits, unless the National Characteristics Rules are being used. I really do appreciate the input, I think this is a pretty strong set of rules now. Let me ask you this.. re: the bolded part of your quote text above: how many waypoints do you think an irregular unit can fulfill within each 60 second turn within the structures you list? I am okay with something like what you suggest, but it shouldn't be a string of movement commands that go over more than one turn. The reason is that these types of units (including out f C2 regulars in this) will be getting what we call Hip Pocket orders, something like, "assault the next room", "move to that treeline" and these orders would be to points within LOS.. I am not limiting to LOS of course, but the limited waypoints should force that... long movement legs can be dangerous as you know.