Los

WHile I like the level of information available (It's currently available in a simple enough manner for me to carry out my plans as I see fit without the slightest undue convenience), I always liked how Talonsoft Eastfront/Westfront allowed you to select option for instant colored highlighting on the map (Who's at what morale state, what damage level/fatigue,whatever?) It would make a nice option to have available but I certainly wouildn't want to see it available in multiplayer unless both agree (then your playing ASL) since it's patently unrealistic. But in the privacy of your own little single player game? Options are always a good thing, just be aware that the designers intent is being degraded by making that kind of info available so easily. (I think). Los

I have noticed the AI at times making all the kinds if fire decisions mentioned above which at times have puzzled me. However I have been playing so much CM (What about a month or more now?) that in the overall picture it hasn't been a major issue since "**** happens". Leading a unit in action is pretty much an endless colelction of chaotic events degrading your ability to control your men who are trying to follow your plan which itself started gong out the window BEFORE the first round was ever popped off. You make up for it with a solid initial plan, and reacting quickly (faster than the bad guys) with sound tactical decisions. As a soldier and a beta tester I have not found any of these issues to be show stoppers probabbly becasue I expect this loss of control and confusion as part and parcel of the package, still I myself have been pretty sucsessful in my gameplay becuase teh majorty of my decisions and movements have put me in a place to overcome my knuckleheads at the squad level. (P.S> I have experienced the Bazooka guy popping off a round witha 2% hit porbability, though I should have ordered him to hold fire..I learned that lesson fast!) I do perhaps think there perhaps should be another look at prioritizing player directed fire orders for two reasons: 1. A mention was made of an example like suppression, this is a good valid example. the positioning and management of your fire support/overwatch forces in the assault is arguable much more important than conducting the assault on a position itself, since if this phase of the oepration fails, then so will the assault. So directing suppresive fire on the target is key. 2. The point about player frustration and enjoyment versus realism (BTW that's what makes some of the HPS sims so annoying at times). Note the example below: "At this point i had to stop (about turn 12), since it was pissing me off too much. I wasn't losing, but it just seemed like i did very little to win, other than deploy my men at "the right" positions." BTW that is EXACTLY what company commanders and battalion commanders do, it's their job to see that there units are capable of performing their missions. In combat they deploy and manuever their forces into the "right positions" at the right time. They don't oversee individual squad fire orders to the level seen in CM, that's what Squad leaders, fire team leaders, and platoon leaders are for. That's realism. But on the flip side, it's no so much fun or satisfying. And CM is a game; most players are going to expect that their orders are carried out unless their are reasonable or at least quantifiable/identifiable reasons for them not doing so. From a soldier standpoint I don't have a problem with the tactical AI. But then again I haven't played the beta demo only the other one.) I'm a part of the beta team and I look at thing from a soldier's perspective since it's a perspective the BFront guys would find most useful from me (as well as gameplayer). Also I have not played every scenatrio out there but have had numerous playing on just a few that I'm either writing or just testing for others. But there are plenty of "non-soldier" gamers on the beta team and now with the demo and their opinion is arguably more important since this is a game after all not a west point training tool and their considerations have to be taken into effect. But those are decisions for BFS. Los

Fionn, it's a possibility. But if the crew had been in the vehicle and it had been functioning it would have either continued to move on the objective or at least continued firing, (as it had been doing up until it was hit) which it did as soon as the guys popped back in. It was dead for 3-5 turns, within clear view of targets it could have engaged. But who knows? Unless Steve or Charlie comes back that it's an impossibility due to coding, then maybe it's possible? Los

I agree that should be something that is available. Los

RE: Crew remanning: Not to counteract what Steve says but unless I am totally off base, this very thing happened to me in a scenario I'm testing. Three renaults going down a wooded lane run into a bazooka ambush. The first one blew up, the second was hit and immobilized, the third was hit and abandoned. Secure in the knowledge that we were safe from tanks (you could see the black suited crews running about) I could concentrate on defeating the enemy infantry (which had suddenly become less aggressive). Then a few turns later all the sudden this tank starts up and begins shotting up the area!. Now unless I was totally off base (possible) that tank was recrewed once the crew got their hudspuh back. I even seem to remember my troops engaging the enemy crew which was hiding next to the tank for a few turns. Morat roudns were falling around them. COuld tey ahve gone back to the tank for cover? Los

BTW the stringent time conditions set by most Scenario designers to get something done are (IMO) almost universally the main problem. Outside from extreme circumstances this is something that doesn't happen very often in real life. Don't get me wrong there is a lot of hustle built into real life actions but that's the stuff that isn't modelled in the scope of most games since it happened before the battle (i.e. you had to hump 20 klicks that night to get into positions etc) Either things have been reconned ahead of time to some degree and you have a clearer picture of what is going on, or you have enough time to scout your way ahead as you are moving out. Recon is a physical law of combat just like gravity is a physical law on this planet, failure to plan for it and do it or have it adressed invariably leads to defeat(in real life at least) which is why it's ALWAYS done. Having been doing a bunch of scenario design myself, the big problem is that as scenario designers you know where everything is when you are playing your scenario. If it comes down to the wire for you, (who knows more or elss what's out there etc) then you need to back off some time (even ten minutes or five minutes, which is a long time in CM-not advocating an extar half hour, that's too much in our wnat instant gratificati0n gamer's world.) for the player that's going through this for the first time. Another problem is that if I, as a company commander, have wrecked my company achieving the scenarios goals, then nine times out of ten, I have failed even though the scenario will chalk you up for a win since you are useless to deal with whatever comes after that last minute of the scenario. It all goes back to the fact that 99.9% of all actions are not Little Round Top, where the fate of the world rests upon the shoulders of a few men, though many scenarios seem to be designed with these extremist views. You don't often get this feeling of time crunch in a battle. (You do in prepping for one) IN a battle it's more like you main concern is getting the job done with the minimum casualties. Sure time is there as a concern, but usually you're not going to wreck yourself wihthout good reason over a time hack. Again that's once the action has started. Cheers... Los

Rick, unless some job has a specicfic need for a specific skill like it's hitting an oil rig (a job notrmally for SEALs) or hitting some place on top of a mountain (might me a specialty team from army specops), then it's more to do with who has the geographic specialty (teams are normally often oriented towards specific parts of eth world) or who's got teams available to do the job or who's twisting whos arm to get work up at JSOC. (Joint Special operations Command) That being said there is a tremendous amount fo overlap between all the organizations. The fact is there's so much work to go around that everyone's pretty much doing everything right now. US Specops are terribly overtaxed at this point. For instance, in Kosovo/Bosnia, you have both SEALs and DELTA participating in the project to apprehend War Criminals as well as SAS and Norwegian SF etc. etc. Despite what anyone tells you, outside of certain specialties (ala scuba, water ops) both Delta and SEALs are equally capable, so it comes down to I need a job done, who's on deck? Perhaps check out www.specialoperations.com for a good online resource to specops units of the world. Hope that helps. Los

Well a lot of that is again situation specific.(scenario specific) Regarding Security: If you are moving to contact against an unknown enemy, your formation should be such that you can react to surprises from any direction (mostly flanks and front). That's a matter of your formation, say if you are advancing your company in a wedge of platoon (1 up and 2 back). As a flank becomes threatened, then that platoon comes the base of fire and pivot for the company. Or it serves to keep the enemy back while the company shifts it's axis of advance slightly to continue the mission. If you are preparing for an attack you still have to position some units (even just fire teams heavy weapons teams or squads) to observe enemy avenues of approach into your flank or rear. Even a squad or a team can provide early warning and some stopping power that will allow you time to switch some of that reserve you should always be keeping to meet the threat. Remember the enemy probably knows as much about you as you know about him so for all he knows, that one HW team is the spearhead for a whole defensive line. Regarding Recon: Me personally I try to lead off with a smaller element (i.e. Spilt a squad in two). If you have a large force you should have some scouts or recon units out clearing your avenue of approach so that your main body does not stumble upon the enemy's main line of resistance by accident. Some units should be on overwatch covering your units if necessary. BTW once you recon has done their job, they are usually pulled out to let the big boys do their thing. At that point the recon elements normally will assume the role of screening a vulnerable flank-again thinking security. One other thing regarding recon, it's always good to have a counter reconnassaince plan in mind too. The defender is always trying to mask his dispositions until the time when opening up will have the greatest effect on the enemy. Giving away positions too early is exactly what the enemy recon is trying to get you to do. Have in mind which vehicle, gun or squad is going to engage enemy recon elements. (maybe even position them forward of your MLR.) After they do engage move your men to a new position. Especially if they're lavishly equipped with arty. If you have 4 AT guns fire on the same enemy scout vehicle he's just earned his pay even if he does get hit. No point in getting too specific since anything can always be "what-iffed" to death. When you are under fire and you have taken every precaution and you want to execute your plan, there are still many possibilities, permutatinos, and potentialities which could end in disaster, but in the end you stil have to say "f**k it", and just go for it. Nothing is ever a sure thing. That's the business your (simulated) troops are in. cheers... Los

Re: Reserves and other tidbits here's some realworld advice: When moving to contact or in a meeting engagement type situation, (aka moving forward into the unknown), always make contact with the smallest possible element. So if a Company is moving forward you have a platoon up from which has a squad up front, which has a fire team up front. Once contact is established the element in contact has the first and formost duty to determine the nature and location of the threat ad report back. The lead element will then usually serve as a base of fire from which the free elements not in contact will pivot this way of that in an attempt to manuever to a flank or some position of advantage where fires can be placed upon the enmey. (Assuming the commander does not decide to break contact in which case elements not in contact will become the base of fire from which to recover the lead elements withdrawl.) It is generaly a good idea to have most of your units covering/overwatching and only the mininmum-sized element necessary actually manuevering since that is when they are at risk and you want to minimize losses. Once they manuever and get in place, then you manuever another one. Of course there are times when "Speed is security" and it's safer to bum rush everyone at once. RE: Reserve placement. They should be out of harms way, and concentrated enough that they can be controlled by the commander. They should not be too far away that they cannnot have an immediate impact on the action since usually you deploy your reserves cause you really NEED them now. Judging by a number of the questions asked here it looks like some may be seeking the "magic pill" or "silver bullet" to tactics. Guess what, there is none (At least for real or in any realisticlly modelled sim). Everything is situation dependent. Like we say "tactics is like assholes and everyone has one." All that being said I would recommend that you keep PRCS in mind at all time. As long as you follow these principles then your tactics will generally be sound: P=Planning. You should have a plan at all times. Plans mean organization and less confusion during moments of chaos. Note that this doesn't have to be Operation Overlord, it can be as simple as an SOP, (like crossing a linear danger area, for example)or a battle drill, (Platoon wire breaching drill etc.) The point is everyone should understand what the unit is trying to accomplish and what their individual role is. Note that contingency planning is vital also. R=Reconnasaince: You should always strive to have the greatest amount of knowledge about an given situation before you unzip your pants, pull your winky out, and lay it on the table. You should strive not to go into situations blind. You see one squad out there so you deploy your entire force into line and go for it not thinking to scout out more and see if there isn't an ambush. In CM, units caught in the open by multiple fires die fast. Reconnasaince is a never ending process, even if it's just looking at a map and matching things up with your doctrinal template of enemy capabilities and intentions. C=Control (some times called communications) You must be able to control your people at all times. In CM this translates directly to whether that line from the squad to the leader is red or black! If your units are too far away, it takes longer to get them to move and do stuff which can be disasterous when seconds count. Control is aslo facillitated by SOPs and IADs(Immediate Action Drills) and battle drills where people know what they're supposed to do. If your guys are scattered all to hell becasue you are trying to do too much at once (often as a result of flawed scenario design) then they will be out of your control when you need them most. S=Security. Does your operation or plan take the security of your force into account? If your whole compnay is enagged to the front, who's wathcing that road to the side? (Even as an early warning measure). It's important to have reserves to deal with what comes up but it's vital to porvide 360 degree security at all times since that's the whole point of flanking etc etc. ALways make arrangements to screen your flanks and rear. Anyway if whatever you are doing takes into account those four principles you will normally be OK but if you forget one of them, god help those little guys! Cheers... Los

Not to besmirch (sp?) ASL since it seems to have provided much inspiration to many here and maybe even to the birth of this product, but much of the detail work you have to do in ASL, is abstracted (accurately) in CM. So you don't have to do stuff like expend points (there are no points) to clear building, recon adjacent locations, track residual FP, rally troops, stipulate the firing of panzerfuasts inherent to squads (and DCs?) designate Fire lanes or RFP, and about a 100 pages of other stuff. The squads figure out and do a lot of stuf on their own once you point them in the right direction, hwere as in ASL you have to be the squad leader AND the company commander for everybody.Hope that helps. Given in that context you don't really have to unlearn very much since it's stuff you don't have to do in this game, though unlearning comes more from thing slike Hey! in ASL the 45mmLL can penetrate the side armor of a T34 at 400 meters, what the heck? (just making that example up). Los P.s. just in case it's unnoticed I'm trying to avert a flame war similar to what we just went through with HPS!

"The Russians should screw the chechen economy. I don't know what currency they use but why not flood it with fake money?" Actually judging by what the Russians are attempting to do visa vis their already crippled economy I'd say it's the other way around. "Why go rushing in to the center of the city?" Well you move on cities usually for two reasons, either because they are in your way to get to somewhere else and they cannot be bypassed (often seen in areas of mountains or rough terrain, such as Ortona or Cassino, for example), or they hold some sort of actual or perceived value for capturing them (Moscow, Stalingrad, Grozny). I suspect Grozny fell in the latter. Give the erroneous assumption that resistance would be light and that the Russian army was some sort of juggernaught, it would not "do" to simple peck away at the outskirts of the city when the world internally and externally is watching to see you take care of business against a few rabble. Or so probably went the Russian thinking. As to the answer to your other questions, most of the time throughout history no commander operates in the perfect world and moves when everything is perfect for him. When the politicians meddle in military affairs, the commander is forced to lay his "perfect world" doctrinal template over the "real world" situational template (forced upon him by political direction or other concerns), and come up with some kind of contingency plan to marry the two together to meet some sort of reasonable successful outcome. This is difficult enough to do with highly competent, lavishly supplies and equipped, and well led forces. Profficiency in military matters, at the individual level, corps level or national level is a highly perishable skill, let that slide as the Russians did (due to a number of reasons) and you move from organized jug**** to unmittgated disaster very quickly. Note the caution being used in this go around. Cheers... Los

BTW a few quick notes about city fighting with regards to using overwhelming firepower etc. First off as a primer... From the US ARMY Infantryman's Guide to MOUT: "b. Engagement ranges are close. Studies and historical analyses have shown that only 5 percent of all targets are more than 100 meters away. About 90 percent of all targets are located 50 meters or less from the identifying soldier. Few personnel targets will be visible beyond 50 meters and usually occur at 35 meters or less. Minimum arming ranges and troop safety from backblast or fragmentation effects must be considered." This is very significant since danger close ( a term denoting the minimu distance your own troops can be from the impact area) to most artillery falls well within this minimum detection range that you see in MOUT. Accurate airstrikes (particulalry naplam) and artillery is very difficult in these situations and also exposes your own troops to high risk. Sure you can pull back to naplam parts of the city but then you have a few problems. First you are not spotting where the stuff is going. Second.... "Modern engineering and design improvements mean that most large buildings constructed since World War II are resilient to the blast effects of bomb and artillery attack. Even though modern buildings may burn easily, they often retain their structual integrity and remain standing. Once high-rise buildings burn out, they are still useful to the military and are almost impossible to damage further. A large structure can take 24 to 48 hours to burn out and get cool enough for soldiers to enter." Third by trashing the city, (And who has this much napalm laying around?) you are only adding to the defenders capability of creating obstacles, obscuration, and slow go terrain that you will have a difficulty in traversing to get at the enemy. Also any kind of skilled defense has the enemy moving as much as the attacker thus cutting down even further the effectiveness of heavy strikes againts fixed positions. Grozny was a perfect example of this. The Chechnyans organized themselves into small hunter groups consisting of an RPG, and LMG, a sniper and several ammo bearers and security men. Several teams would engage the same vehicle at once from opposite sides, then move to new firing positions. (often through internal "mouseholes" where you can move from building to building without getting out into the street.) Eventually as the Russians (later in the war) restructured themsleves into storm groups, (rifle company, tank platoon, engineer platoon, ZSU23 section, some SPGs. mortars and AGLs) the Chechnyans leaned that fixed defenses would normally get knocked off, all other things being equal. So the answer was to inflitrate and hit rear areas and MSR (main SUpply ROutes) to the storm detatchments until they were isolated and could be dealt with in detail. In CM terms you should be able to simulate most of this. The German 44 squads with inherent pzf and LMG make a perfect counterpart to the Chechnyan hunter groups, using hide and ambush tactics. And the scenario editor would allow you to task organize your attackers . While you are not going to get the in-game rubble and smoke creation for various attacks against buildings, the scenario designer can create these "terrain effects" on the front end. Los [This message has been edited by Los (edited 10-25-99).]

PeterNZ says... "As for Grozny, i read an article somewhere saying the inexperience of the KLA showed in making the kind of mistake fionn advises against, in deploying at the edge of town. Worse, the source i read said they should of been digging into foxholes instead of hidding in large blds easily brought down on the heads of the KLA by arty fire." There are a number of excellent resources on the battle of Grozny, some on the net and many written by the Russians. The Checnyan defense of Grozny in the first war was well executed by all accounts while the Russian tactics were criminallly negligent. Contrary to the post above the Chechnyans did not forward deploy their defenses on the outskirts of the city (In any appreciable manner) but waited until the Russains were all the way "downtown" before hitting them from all sides. The famous new Year's battle cost them nearly a complete regiment! You can go here and follow one of the operations links to the Checnya home page. This contains links to the FSMO and CALL which have a number of excellent resources on the battle and Russian MOUT experiences in the war in general. Also regarding artillery in general it has proven to be of limited effectiveness in MOUT operations. Tehre are issues around the weihgt of shell and more importantly calling in and spotting fire in cities. What your really end up doing with large artillery concentrations is creating for free and rapidly large fields of the most excellent defensive terrain a defender can hope for. However it has been learned (over and over) that good SP artillery in the direct fire mode, in direct support of storm groups can be used effectively to reduce individual enemy positions. Enjoy! The MOUT homepage: http://www.geocities.com/Pentagon/6453/ Battle for Grozny: http://call.army.mil/call/fmso/fmsopubs/issues/battle.htm AN infantyman's guide to combat in built up areas: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/90-10-1/default.htm Military operations in Urbanized terrain: http://www.adtdl.army.mil/cgi-bin/atdl.dll/fm/90-10/toc.htm Los

BTW even modern n LAWs, AT4s, Carl Gustav, 90mm RR, have so0me "loft" or "arc" to them when fired at longer ranges. Los

To me that picture looks like a panzerfaust. Keep in mind that the standard firing of a panzerfaust was often under the arm not on the shoulder like a modern LAW and I have seen plenty of pictures of it being fired that way. The round itself is way to small for a rifle grenade nor would a rifle grenade cause a backblast like you are seeing. Also if you look closely in the second picture you can see the tail of the panzerfaust sticking out from under the guys arm. As for the trajectory of that particular shot, hell the guy could be just ****ing around or the just firing one off for the camera or firing one in combat at something at a higher elevation. I think Mr. H has done a good job on that. Los one.

"you mean there is no restriction of firing these weapons -Panzerfaust, Panzerschreck and Bazooka - from any confined spaces such as rooms etc.? It should not be possible in very small rooms. that it shouldn't be portrayed to have such a weapon hit a target in the same room is obvious and it's a good thing this has been rectified. Same goes for grenades, i guess." A quick semi-relevant note (or not). Recoiless weapons can be fired from within buildings given sufficient openings to that space. Anyone who's ever been through MOUT training in the army would have been trained in quickly judging how much open space is required for each weapon type. For example a LAW requires 65 square feet of openings (window space, blown out walls, missing roof, doors, whatever) in the room to prevent injury to the fire. That's normally three or four windows and a door. In a prepared defensive position, it's not much of an issue,(there is other things needed to be done to prep the firing area also) though a run and gun situation could be dicey. I like the idea of modelling backblast also. Los p.s. I'd love to respond to a lot of these non-issues but I can't ...sigh p.p.s sorry to see this degrading to an Pits/CM pissing contest..

That would require guidance from BTS. Los

Not that I wouldn't mind seeing a new LMG to replace the M60, you guys are looking ridiculously way to much into this whole barrel change thing. Even a guy with moderate training in the weapon can change the barrel on an M60 rapidly, whether it's bipod, or tripod mounted,, whether he's laying down, standing up, or sitting at a retaurant with with his feet up on the table. Also keep in mind MGs are fired as crew served weapons, which means you have an AG down there beside you to help out in most all cases. Sure in the movies you have one guy parading around firing the MG with one hand and feeding the belt himself, but there's usually someone with you to help out. It's more effective that way. Los

Easy there Nagy! Actually the M60 spare barrel bag (which the AG carries) has in it: One spare M60 barrel. One asbestos mit. One gas ring tool. One cleaning kit. (you can fit your T&E in there too) And whatever else you can shoveonto nit Note that even with the handle it's a good idea to use that mit to avoid burning yourself. Even the MG42 has a mit that came with it. You don't sit there with the mit on, in fact you just use it like a pot holder when necessary. Note that hot weapons is not the sole purview of the MG. The AK, M16 and other SLRs can get incredibly hot during a firefight. I have burned myself a few times (common occurance with infantrymen). I once had a second degree burn on my neck from an M16. Was kneeling down after consolidating on an OBJ and checking a map when the rfle, leaning on my shoudler, slipped and the muzzle burned my neck. Was a nice scar for a few weeks. The AK is absolutely horrid in ths regard (most models) since it has a only cheesy little piece of wood over the barrel/gas tube which itself gets pretty hot (Not as efficient a heat deflector as most SLR forward grips). Note that I'm not talking about plinking on the range but real firing like in a fight two-four mags in quick succession. Older weapons have this problem too. Reminds me of a funny story: My old team sergeant used to tell us (He was 3 tours Marine in Vietnam) He was getting ready to lead out a LRRP when some cheesedick rear echelon Major wanted to accompnay them. The guy was horrified when he saw all the rounds they were carrying (500 per man). All authoritative-like he picks up the handset to the radio and goes, Son this is how we kill the enemy by getting on this and calling air and arty." To which our supremely confident PFC LRRP leader holds up his M14 and goes, "Sir by the time you reach anyone on that ****in' thing this here rifle is gonna be white-hot." BTW after that misison the major never went anywhere near the field again. Los

Im going to say something that will get me shot with this crowd, but the next logical step to this whole CM process after we do all the theaters everyone wants is to allow you to jump into the body of every one soldier and fight like a FPS. (remember my platoon leader simulator post a month ago?) Of course this would require virtually a whoe rewrite since I believe fire is resolved by sqauds not by individuals (or it is at least depicted as such to save on graphic horsepower). Now before anyone freaks out and says it would imbalance play because you get one superhero wiping out the whole enemy side. Well providing that the porgram is indeed resolving combat realistically and the AI is acting intelligently you would be killed fairly quickly for action with a typical FPS run and gun mentality. (Like R6 does).

Hey while you are gussying up paratroopers don't forget them fallschirmjaeger. Their combat smocks (bone sacks)need to go down to around mid-thigh! Los

Oh no I forgot to recommend Major Craven Moorehead. Los

Actually even as far back as the early seventies the M60 had the changeable barrel similar to what we carry today. ( I know they were standard issue back in 77 when I first saw one up close) I can check to find out when that change occured. The fifty cal still has the screw in barrel where you have to set headspace and timing after every barrel change also. Los

I've been trying like crazy to get Heavena nd Hell by matin Poppel. It's a fallschirmjaeger's account and a good one. Los

BTW I don't know if this has been mentioned but there was a good book that came out a few years back (Sorry can't remember the name!) that details hundreds of thousands of German POW deaths that occured in "Western ALlied" POW camps in 1945-48 primarily due to disease, exposure ad malnutrition. These were sort of skirted over by the allies after the war. Of course then there were the Russian POW camps. It may not ahve been due to any deliberate policy on the US/UK/French but due to incompetence and mismanageent. Wich I could remember the name of the book. I'll have to peruse Barbes and Noble. Los