Bil Hardenberger

I have not played that scenario, because, well I never play campaigns because I rarely play the AI ...but it sounds to me like the designer wanted to create a react to ambush situation. If that's the case then, hey as you know, it could happen and would be an interesting scenario where you are forced to control the bleeding. Every situation will not and should not be as controlled and clean as you like. I'm glad you have started to participate and I'm enjoying your posts, keep them coming. Bil

This is an advanced scenario... as such it is up to the commander (you) to decide how to approach it... the author, ScoutPL's intent was to try to get the player's attention away from the terrain objectives and think for themselves. It is your job to analyze the terrain, the mission (scenario briefing) and what you find out about the enemy as the scenario unfolds in order to best determine what adjustments you should make. I don't want to give too much more guidance than that, as more would verge on a spoiler. Bil

As a complement to these Tactical Problems I just released a set of Threat based floating icons. Note that these are an improvement on the Modern style icons I released recently. Friendly units will always use rectangular icons while Threat (opposing force) will always use diamond shaped icons. For more details see the Threat Based Floating Icons post on my blog.

For those of you who have started a game, what do you think of the briefing graphics? Do they present everything clearly enough for you? Tried to do something completely different with them for these Tactical Problems.

Quite the contrary in fact. I am really looking forward to seeing how it develops for you.

Appreciate it Cap. Yes engine 4. I'm having a very interesting PM with Domfluff and his feedback for TP01 right now. I hope people share their experiences, with the proper spoiler warnings of course.

You should play some H2H games Alex... you are ready, you know you are. Take @slysniper on, should be easy pickings for you. How's that for throwing you under the bus Sly?

Definitely let us know how it goes.

Here is the generic scenario description for PBEM Tactical Problem 01. This scenario is designed to really make you think and adjust your thinking as the situation changes. A Rifle Behind Every Tree – CMFB ~ Movement to Contact ~ Each player is responsible for identifying key terrain and adjusting initial plan depending on how enemy contact evolves throughout the scenario. The main objective(s) is or are hidden for both sides, players are expected to identify it or them in their key terrain analysis. See the in-game scenario briefing for scenario details on each side. Time: 30 minutes. Complexity: US Player: Advanced German Player: Advanced Author: Todd Justice (ScoutPL) Download Link: PBEM TP01 - A Rifle Behind Every Tree

These Tactical Problems designed by Todd Justice ( @ScoutPL ) and myself are designed to give small scale (Platoon to Company (+)) and short (around 30 minute) games for two players to test and explore tactical solutions to unique situations. They are Head to Head only in order to provide the toughest challenge. Each side in these scenarios is designed to provide a challenge, though some sides may be tougher than others, refer to the scenario complexity ratings for the difficulty rating for each side. Post your solutions in the comments section for each scenario, or on the Battlefront forum. We might in the future add AI to each side of these scenarios based on the best submitted solutions for each side. Links below: PBEM Tactical Problems Introduction PBEM Tactical Problem 01 - A Rifle Behind Every Tree PBEM Tactical Problem 02 - Strongpoint! (Coming Soon) PBEM Tactical Problem 03 - The Last Hundred Yards (Coming Soon) It had always been my intent to provide Tactical Problems like these on my blog to allow you to learn and test tactical situations. Please leave your feedback below. I would suggest that if you have an AAR or a solution to one of these scenarios that you start a new thread and post a link to it in this thread to keep spoilers to a minimum. Bil

So have I.. especially for armor; hull and/or turret orientation make a big difference in reaction time.

This post from my CMRT AAR gives an example of how I do this sort of movement. All of the movement in that example is Hunt.. that's because its very close terrain with limited LOS.

One or two action spots at the most for the rush (fast speed) and about the same for the hunt moves. Use hunt more The closer you get to probable enemy contact.

Is your team moving slow? If so that could be part of the problem... visibility is not great when they are hugging the ground. Move teams in pairs, in a mixture of very short rushes (Fast) and Hunt... with a lot of listening halts in order to better spot enemy units.

I think that adding the comment on armor really muddies the discussion... of course the presence of armor complicates everything, however that doesn't really make the text book tactics useless. I always preach to learn the basics first in isolation, only then can you adjust them to your situation and keep them in your back pocket for when the situation arises to apply them in a text book fashion. This happens in many games whether tanks are present or not. Tactics are nothing but a bunch of tools that you can use or ignore as the situation demands... they are not a set of rules, but should be used as guidelines. I'm not sure this is unrealistic... it could take a while even in a real firefight for an overwatching unit to adjust to the sudden chaos and get a handle on where the fire is coming from and the fire's volume.. again this does not mean the basic tactics are ineffective. Seriously, adding these specific situations really don't add much to the conversation... unless the OP asks specifically for how to handle that situation, then it would make sense to me. Besides if you need to add a second MG to provide effective suppression then of course you should do that, don't really see the problem with that. Well it really depends on the size of the enemy unit and the proximity to the suppressing team/squad, etc. If you are having trouble with keeping the enemy unit suppressed than chances are that you are not applying enough suppression fire, add another team or a full squad. There is a lot of misunderstanding on how these tactics are supposed to be used, they are made up of just a few basic elements: SUPPORT ELEMENT - Provides suppression on the enemy position - this element should be as large as is required to actually provide effective suppression - from a single team to multiple squads if that is what is needed MANEUVER ELEMENT - the Support Element is the anvil and this element is the hammer. The Maneuver Element should ONLY attempt to assault the enemy position when it is effectively suppressed.. the Maneuver Element will probably be smaller than the Support Element but should at least be about the same size as the enemy unit being acted against.

Welcome to the club. You have already been given several excellent options to learn from. I would argue that most Western armies, and this includes the Germans, used similar infantry tactics in WW2, the US specifically used Fire and Movement, while the Germans actually used something closer to the modern Squad Attack Drill. Regardless I would be willing to bet that these text book templates really were bastardized on the spot and many variations were used. So be creative and use what you already know (from your real world experience) regardless of country you are playing. Every nation has idiosyncrasies that you need to adjust for: US Squads are large and can split into three teams good for short range action good staying power German Squads are small and can only split into two teams great at long range, and deadly at short range if SMG equipped little staying power (casualties degrade combat effectiveness quickly) Soviet Squads require care, if used split they must be carefully kept within C2 as they become very brittle good staying power excellent short range fire and good long range Etc. Looking forward to seeing how you make out and if this game "grabs you" like it did some of us. Bil

The original post is for page views on my blog. The all time stats didn’t list the Netherlands but I think it either doesn’t list every country or page views from that country are too insignificant to make the list. I expect a lot more Dutch in here once CMSF2 is released. Bil

Some of you guys are probably correct that the weighting is mainly based on language. I wonder how much of a factor that is when purchasing CM... @Falaise, I know the blog you are referring to. I have read that blog too. Maybe Google translate is better from French to English? Because I can easily understand what is being written there using it Bil

The following is based on all time page views from my Battle Drill blog (active for 5 years now), but I think it might show a trend that could indicate which countries have the largest wargaming populations or at least where Combat Mission is most popular... I don't know if there is anything to this, or if Battlefront's Combat Mission sales bear these numbers out, but I found it interesting: USA 54.45% UK 11.11% Russia 7.39% Germany 6.41% Canada 5.35% France 4.09% Australia 2.29% Ukraine 2.20% Sweden 1.37% Spain 1.25% Based on the above numbers, I can understand why Battlefront loves releasing games featuring US forces.

Oops... I updated the link in the first post... that should take you to the right one.

I created this floating icon mod based on modern tactical symbology. If you try it out, any feedback would be appreciated. Download link: CMFB Modern Style Icons

I created this floating icon mod based on modern tactical symbology. If you try it out, any feedback would be appreciated. Download link: CMBN Modern Style Icons

It is possible that the TOE is correct, and though these units were identified as "mechanized" that they don't "own" any inherent transport. It might actually be a TOE bug, but it could just be a reflection of reality. It could be that at this point in the war the Germans (even the SS) simply didn't have enough transport to hand out... like having FJ Divisions that never used a parachute... in a quick battle you would have to purchase that transport separately. This happens even today, for example, in the US Army's current 101st Air Assault Division, though it is an Air Assault unit and each Battalion can be transported by helicopters, the Battalions do not have any inherent helicopters... in fact there aren't even enough helicopters available to move the entire Division at one time.

My preference is to have my mortars on map, always, if at all possible. They are much more responsive (much faster reaction times and can be devastating because the enemy does not have the spotting round warning you get with indirect fire) than off map mortars are in my opinion. Nothing worse than plotting an off-map mortar mission, only to have it fall on empty positions because the enemy pulled out when they identified spotting rounds... Also, mortars can "cheat" a little on LOS/targeting (allowing for some local indirect fire)... for example, the following image from one of my AARs shows a mortar, with no direct LOS, firing on an enemy HMG team.. this was direct targeted.

Never give up hope. I thought you had more time left.. but that last screenshot, once I zoom in tells the tale. Again, not enough time was given to complete your task. You probably do not have enough time to let your units recover for another push... but maybe. Sometimes in a game you are not necessarily outfought, but fall victim to either a terrain or firepower disadvantage... and there is no shame to losing in that way, nobody can win in every situation. You have both disadvantages as your opponent had a much shorter run to the objectives and thus there was probably no way you could have gotten to them before him... and now that he is in those built up positions you are at a firepower disadvantage, as you have to cross open terrain to close with him... additionally you are moving and he is stationary and that brings spotting advantages for him that will just compound the already lopsided combat-effectiveness disparity. Bil