ScoutPL

Broadsword, realized I might not have addressed your question: In real life squad disposition would often depend on the soldiers load. BZ and MG teams (even light MG and BAR teams) would be so overloaded that they really couldn't be relied on to spot, move stealthily, etc. So those with rifles and other light small arms would be out front, with the heavier weapons bringing up the rear. It also comes down to manning though this isn't really replicated in CM. Experience and size are big determiners here. The bigger guys get the heaviest gear right? As a rule but not always. You always want your most experienced guys (outside of leaders) crewing your heavy weapon systems as gunners. Often machinegunners and AT gunners are required to make split second decisions without time to get input from their leaders. So it is imperative they have the knowledge to do that. On the other hand the least experienced guys are often ammo bearers for the heavy weapon systems. This keeps them relatively protected so they can gain experience before moving up to the assault team. The squad leader would often float around the squad, applying his decision making and leadership where it was needed. CM sticks him in one team which raises the issue I brought up earlier. ME: I used to break out the scout team too but found they were just bullet sponges. A 3-4 man team seems to spot better, returns fire quicker and heavier, and has the ability to pull out a casualty or two. The trade off is a team that size can be spotted easier but like any good infantryman, I want to find the enemy and kill him, not hide from him. So its a fair tradeoff in my mind.

WWII US Army doctrine did not have official Fire Teams in the Rifle Squad like they do today. Hence the title Squad Leader and Assistant Squad Leader as opposed to todays Squad Leader and A and B Team Leaders. Actually the decision to go to a 4 man Fire Team came from a number of different research projects, probably the most well known being SLA Marshalls. The conclusion being that three to five is the optimal span of control for any leader. Optimal meaning maximize the leaders maneuver units without overtaxing him. Hence the four man Fire Team, two Fire Teams in a squad (three in the USMC), three rifle squads in a platoon, three rifle platoons in a Company, etc. I think that in actual practice Squads and Platoons developed internal practices that probably were precursors to modern doctrine. Instead of "SGT Wilcox take your Fire Team and flank left while I have SGT Ables Fire Team suppress," it was "Hey Joe take a couple guys and go left while I stay here with the rest and the BAR team and suppress."

So I dutifully did a forum search and found some good detail for background to my question but it didn't give the direct answer I was looking for. Situation: You have a platoon that is moving in traveling overwatch (one squad well forward but still in PLs C2 radius). The lead squad is broken into its fire teams with one team also pushed forward. Often the squads are broken down like this: rifle/smg team and support weapon team(s) (MG, BZ, PZChK, etc). The squad leader is often with the rifle/smg team (A Team) and the assistant SL with the support weapons (B Team). I don't want to break out a 2 man scout team because it inevitably dies horribly since it lacks the firepower to defend itself (and its not what a rifle squad would do in RL anyway). The rulebook states that if the SL dies the ASL takes over and maintains the C2 structure. My question is: does the squad suffer any ill effects (in terms of disruption, panic, etc) due to the loss of the SL? I realize I lose the benefit of the SL's ldrshp modifier, but does his death effect the squad in other ways? All of this gets to the decision about which team leads? The one with the SL or the one with the support weapons? Each team has its strengths and assets that should be protected. I am leaning toward the team with the SL and just rolling dice on whether he becomes an early casualty. He will offer his leadership immediately to the teams survivability and to their spotting capability. And the BZ or MG that the other team is carrying could have battle winning effects later, including help extract the lead team from trouble. But if the loss of the SL will have an immediate negative effect on the squad as a whole that may contribute significantly to their pinning/panicking than his importance may trump the SWs. The next step is to conduct some tests on my own but I thought I would jump on here and collect some opinions/thoughts from others first.

I appreciate everyone's comments and all of you taking the time to read mine. But I learned years ago that when it comes to forum debates the real victor is usually the guy who bows out first, because otherwise the merry-go-round just keeps spinning. I have said what I wanted to say. I'll be happy to observe from this point on.

These are all great arguments that address things outside the scope of necramonium's reason for starting this thread. He stated that he disliked feeling pressured by the arbitrary time constraint that some scenario designers placed on the player(s). I agreed with him that I thought it was unnecessary and unrealistic. To which I got a number of responses laying out why the timer is so important to game mechanics and how time is often a factor in the resolution of a battle. The timer IS essential to the execution of the game. Its required for game mechanics to work correctly and for controlling the AI in a single player game. I agree with this point 100%. However it has nothing to do with the point I was making when I joined this thread. Time is of enormous importance to the execution of a battle or operation. It is essential that planners and subordinates understand timing in order to maintain the initiative, tempo and synchronization of an operation. However, "operational time" (this has to happen before this other thing can happen) has nothing to do with the actual closing with the enemy in your objective area (ie CM game space). I will use Market Garden as an example to illustrate my point since it was brought up earlier. According to the US Armys official "Green Book" history, the 101st and 82nd jumped at around 1300. They had not captured all of their initial assault objectives (the bridges) until hours later (1600 in the case of the 101st). Did time and speed play a huge role in their success? Of course. If they had lolly-gagged on the DZs they would have failed completely. But are you going to design a scenario for players that portrays that 2-3 hour long dash for the bridges? Not if you want players to actually enjoy your scenario. No, you are going to focus your scenario on the last 30-45 minutes of the actual capturing of the bridges and the FIREFIGHT that took place there. Historically you know what forces were present. You know their composition, their equipment, their location, etc. The forces that were present for that thirty minute fight are there and they arent going to change. So why not give the player 45 min instead of 30? Is a force of significant size going to show up in that last 15 minutes? Not historically, or else the Germans would have simply recaptured the bridges and MG would have failed even more horrendously than it did. The time crunch is past (get to the bridges). What remains is simply fighting the fight with whats available in CM. There is no need to give the player exactly 30 minutes and tell him he has to take the bridge in that time or he fails. He's there, the race is over, now its a tactical problem. Another point for clarification: I am sure most of you have heard of METT-TC. Its a planning tool that the US Army teaches to leaders to conduct mission analysis. It stands for Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops - Time, Civilian Considerations. As you can see by its inclusion, Time is extremely important from a doctrinal standpoint. However, time in this case has far less to do with how long it takes to secure an objective and a whole lot more to do with planning and movement prior to the objective. In US Army doctrine unless it is for a very, very specific reason, the time given in a mission statement will be a No Later Than time to attack, defend, or even just cross the Line of Departure. Doctrine concedes that once the fight has started you cant control time. To try to do so inhibits your commanders and defies the doctrinal precepts of Mission Orders. If you tell a commander he has to attack a hill by 1500 and then tell him he has to have it in his hands by 1530 he will immediately question your reasoning and ability to command (albeit, probably behind your back). There is no way to know what will happen once you are fully engaged in a direct fire gunfight with the enemy. Things might go really quick or they may get bogged down. Thats why most synch matrixs and decision points are based on conditions that dont include time. Once x unit passes Phaseline Red this will happen. Once the enemy armored force has been reduced to 50% that will happen, etc. Planners use backwards planning to synch their units in time and space. As a company commander I might be given an attack time of say 0530. Its now 1300. So I have sixteen and a half hours. I apply METT-TC and the first thing I do is determine the time I think I will need to occupy my Support by Fire and Attack positions. Say an hour. Time to travel from my current location to the objective area? 6 hours. So I have 9 and a half hours to plan. I take one third of that time for myself to plan (3 hours) and I set aside two thirds for my subordinates to plan, rehearse, prepare etc. I am not planning (based on time) what will happen once I initiate my attack. Nor does doctrine say I should. CM scenarios generally start where the commander is beginning to move into his SBF and atk positions. If you think of the setup area as the last rally point before the attack (or Objective Rally Point - ORP), than you can see how the game fits into this construct. So saying that we should have to watch a clock in a CM scenario because that a reflection of real life just isnt accurate. By the time the battle has progressed to the point CM can replicate it, time is irrelevant. Any reinforcing units that are within range to influence the fight are pre-planned by the scenario designer. Once the battle is engaged no commander is going to tell a subordinate who is moving aggressively against the enemy to move faster. All of this illustrates my point that placing a significant time restraint (one that creates an artificial sense of urgency on the players part) is unrealistic. Sure you dont want an open ended clock that would allow the player to crawl across the map and "trick" the AI into exposing themselves. Thats just bad play and misses the real value that CM provides. But there shouldnt be anything wrong or disruptive with adding 15-20 minutes to what the designer believes would be necessary to accomplish the mission. All it does is prevent an artificial restraint that accomplishes nothing.

ASL: ok so every CM scenario needs to be about capturing a bridge intact? A case where the exception DOES NOT prove the rule. A great example of a rare instance where time was a key factor. Thanks for the input!

1. The clock is the only existing means to persuade the AI to do anything dynamic. I totally agree with this point. And If I were looking to play CM and tout myself on a forum or a ladder as the guy with the most wins I might care about the issues you bring up. I dont play for those reasons, nor do I think most do. I play CM as a simulator, which is what I think the creators want it to be played as. So when I play I try to force myself to play it as realistically as possible. Which means I am not looking for ways to apply the limitations of the game to create a win for me. However, as in the example I gave, if my lead elements see the enemy moving to my front and my units have not been spotted I might be tempted to watch and see what happens. Its called tactical patience and it shouldnt be punished by a game clock. 2. CM time is compressed. You'll have to work a little harder to convince me of this. Does this mean the bullets are flying twice as fast? The guys that are running are really walking? I'm sure thats not what you meant but its not very clear. Do you mean that for most of the actions leading up to a CM scenario it would take most of a day in real life? If so, than yes I agree wholeheartedly. CM portrays what professionals call "actions on the objective." The "Last One Hundred Yards," so to speak. You are right, when that rifle company gets handed to you in a CM scenario it has been up since before day break, conducted troop leading procedures, handed out ammo, perhaps had a warm meal, and sat on a Line of Departure for an hour or two waiting for the signal to move out. It then walked (very slowly and carefully) for a klick or two before it got to the point you take over in the scenario. If CM were to portray all of that it WOULD be very tedious. However, it has nothing to do with a starting a stopwatch once the first round is fired, initiating "actions on the objective." "I don't think anyone's suggesting that a commander who can't get to the phase line "in time, all the time" will get broken to the ranks." Thats good. But a timer forces a lot of players to move quicker than they want to or should and thus sustain more casualties than they would if they didnt feel pressured. I just think its an artificial restraint that has nothing to do with simulating combat. If you are pushing your pixel troops to meet a time constraint and watching them get mowed down in the process (pixels that are representative of men you would have had tea with a few hours earlier), than you arent learning the real lessons of combat. I might be mistaken, but I thought that was the point. I would like to see more concern about learning how to conduct an attack with minimal loss of life to your team. And in my experience, in the vast majority of instances time is a concern, but hardly a driving factor in how a battle plays out. How about we use that for "Gamers seem to need some sort of external metric to judge themselves by..." This is why I am a big fan of using force vp along with victory locations. "And maybe if you work harder to make the deadline without increasing your losses, you'll get better at playing this game." If you mean becoming a more tactically savvy player than I would argue that right at the top of those valuable lessons is exercising tactical patience when its called for by your read of the enemy and the situation. Sburke: "No offense, but have you created any scenarios?" Not recently no, I've been away from the CM community and forums for a few years due to constraints of my job mostly. However, I was one of the first to join these forums in 2000, right after CMBO came out and I was very prolific in writing tutorials, designing scenarios and attempting to set up an operational campaign game. At least until Sep 11, 2001. I am still in the archives as ScoutPL. Feel free to go look me up. An AI script is nothing but a series of orders executing a plan. Its not complicated and it doesnt have to be hard. Once you create multiple plans or "branches" to your central plan you can go in and create different plans in the AI. Basic tactics are just fire and maneuver. Establish a firing position on key terrain and maneuver other forces forward to seize the next key piece of terrain. Time hacks are currently used to control this and work just fine. For the defense, establish a time hack for how long they will defend each key piece of terrain or set the units status at the desirable point so they will withdraw or surrender when the right amount of pressure is applied. Perhaps what we are dealing with here is a simple miscommunication. I am not advocating getting rid of the timer all together. Obviously it is a key component of how the game works, from the AI to calling for fire. What I am advocating is scenario designers stop using the timer to create unnecessary tension in their scenario. I agree wholeheartedly with wombles post #9. It needs to be about preserving your force and destroying the enemy, while seizing (or holding) your objectives. In my opinion the problem is with the stopwatch effect, not the timer in general.

The timer IS super unrealistic. When I design a scenario or set up a QB I always set it for an hour or more. Even if its a 30 minute firefight, I feel its just unrealistic not to give the players plenty of time. I cant really think of an example where accomplishing a goal by a certain time was deemed more important than preserving men or equipment. And that is what is often happening in these games. The attacking player looks over at the clock, realizes he only has five minutes left and just throws everything he has away in an attempt to get that last victory location. Really its about perspective and scope. The battles we fight in CM are very, very small. Despite what some scenario titles may have you believe, you cant represent a week long battle(even a day long battle) in a 45 minute firefight. That's what these are (firefights), not battles. So the idea that you might be under some sort of time constraint to seize a crossroads or a village due to time is unrealistic. The idea that the AI might require multiple orders to move it around an 800x800m square in an hour (or two, or three) is also a misnomer. A good AI plan will be based on seizing terrain or destroying enemy forces from good vantage points. He doesn't have to jitterbug across the map constantly to do that. Shoot, for a meeting engagement you should be able to sit in an OP (assuming you had a scout team forward that spots his movement and remains undetected) and watch the AI move his forces onto the march objective (victory point), set up his defenses and then plan and execute a coordinated attack. That's certainly what I have been taught to do, unless of course I know with a reasonable doubt that I maintain an advantage in which case I would immediately attack to maximize that advantage. There are historical examples of commanders being fired for failing to maintain initiative, move aggressively or otherwise "waste time." But none of them were fired for losing thirty minutes. They were all fired for sitting on their butt. No commander is going to fire his subordinate for taking time to conduct proper recon, emplace supporting assets, move units so as to concentrate fire on the enemy or to gain a flanking or turning movement. Yes, it might upset the Operations Officers precious timeline or synch matrix and he might get a little counseling urging him to move a little quicker next time but even that is hard to imagine within the context of a CM scenario. They are just too small in their scope.

Looking for experienced opponents to play small to medium engagements. I have CMBN up to Market Garden and CMSF up to NATO. Can play 1-2 turns a day per opponent. Send query to toddj4143@gmail.com

For me it comes down to realism and CM wins that hands down. If you want a flashy game with lots of armor running around in open, uncluttered, unrealistic terrain than go for ToW. I havent played it in a few years but it just seemed buggy and clunky to me when I tried. Want a tactical sim that will stress your ability to maneuver squads and platoons? Go for CM. Otherwise stay away. A pacific tactical sim sounds great but in reality would probably be rather difficult to create and play. I can t imagine what triple canopy jungle would do to your average framerate. Just trying to fight a battle like kokoda trail (which was really a hundred thousand squad and team fights that happened to occur in the same general area, due to the severely restrictive terrain) seems like a player nightmare to me. My two cents.

My advice on battle techniques? Learn what you can from the Masters with the proven track record. Study tactical doctrine from different theoretical viewpoints. Learn everything you can about the likely equipment and soldiers you will have at your disposal. And practice, practice, practice (i.e. train, train, train). A good commander can take any token force on any given terrain, apply his knowledge and experience and if not win, at least make his enemy pay dearly. It very rarely comes down to who has the most submachineguns.

Was this a Base/Module scenario or a custom one? The small frontage for all that combat power is a commanders wet dream!

Thanks Bil. That was my "unplug" method one winter I spent in a B-hut. Working on doing another scenario with CMBN. I have the analysis slides complete, will post those soon. Working the play through/vid now.

There is no way that is from a single hit of anything. Those pics look a lot like tank hulls that most armies drag out onto their gunnery ranges for target practice. If that is a single 152mm round it has to be after the hull was severely degraded by multiple hits, particularly after looking at the turret and how much of it has practically been blown away. Not saying I know anything about the photo, just explaining what it looks like based on my experience. And no, I wouldn't want to be riding in ANYTHING with a 152mm round coming down range. Did they even make AT specific rounds for the 152mm? Or was it just HE?

OK, Womble. Next time I will be more liberal with the smileys. So serious....

I know that military folks (and medical folks, and cops, and lawyers, and just about anyone else with a professional "language") can be pretty confusing when trying to talk to the unitintiated. I think Womble has brought CMing to a whole new level when he can ask a question that even the folks in the community forum cant follow half of what he is saying. Drilling? AS? Hanomags? "last 120s"? What he's really saying is he cant believe he's about to lose those precious (not to mention rare and expensive) "drillings" to a mere rifle squad.

Man I am glad you guys are here to keep BFC straight. Reminds me of some Field Service Reps I have run into. CPT ScoutPL: "What do you mean I cant drive across two wadis, dragging another MRAP with a busted axle and not expect to blow the engine!?!" FSR: "Sir, we aren't saying you cant do it. Obviously you can, your guys just did. We just don't recommend it."

I am not sure how anyone can continue to defend a "leader" who continuously raped his country's coffers and steals his people blind. There is plenty of evidence that Y did just that. A legally elected president of the US who acted the way he did would probably end up eating a bullet (we have a lot of guns in this country, in case you haven't heard). I have been rather personally involved in Afghanistan and Iraq over the years so I feel I can speak with some authority on those topics. My personal opinion first. I had no issue going after the Taliban. I was never a supporter of the decision to go into Iraq. Given that, I have also become convinced that conducting nation building in both countries was a huge mistake as well. However, I don't feel feel either conflict has ended in a total waste of lives and American assets. We went after the Taliban because they offered sanctuary and support to a group of men who killed 3000+ people ( a good portion who were actually citizens of other countries). If that's not a national security issue demanding some sort of action I don't know what is. We went into Iraq claiming wmd. I think all can agree that was a huge mistake (either in intel collection or public relations, it's still not clear). I would argue it was for oil, which for good or bad, is also a very strong national security issue in this country. However, the end result of both of those wars has been a relatively free society that is capable of writing their own future. In the end it might not be the future we as Americans would have liked to see, but it will be their own, to do with as they will. Would Saddam or his natural successor have provided the Iraqi people that opportunity? Would the Taliban have stepped down and held open elections? Yes we can debate, argue, and regret the paths that the US govt chose to get us here but I don't think it's all been for naught. I don't see Russia/Putin being so open minded or democratically focused (or sanctimonious if you wanna put it that way). Now, Putin. Does possibly having to pay rent for a Black Sea port or access rights to Ukrainian pipelines justify seizing a part of a sovereign nation, regardless of its current internal issues? Well, obviously we have people on both sides of that argument. I would also comment that due to the world economic situation and interdependence that we will probably never see an armed conflict on the scale some keep lamenting here. Yes, currently some EU countries are hesitant to go along with sanctions due to their own reliance on Russian resources. In five years will that be the case? Ten? If I were Germany I would be seriously looking for alternative sources at this point. No country wants to be beholden to a dictator like Putin and he has certainly shown Western Europe his true colors now. Even if the west was to come down hard on Russia would Russia go to war over it? They lack the economic ability to go to war on a full scale for very long. Today's wars are not fought by masses of peasants riding blocks of steel with a cannon on top. Not unless you just want to run up the body count. I would reference any of the US's major fights in Iraq or Afghanistan as an example. How long could Russia field an air force, navy, and a few armored corps before it ran out of fuel, food, spare parts etc? Especially once it was economically isolated by the rest of the world? Would all of that be worth them choosing the nuclear option, given all we know about the long term effects of such a decision? (Unfortunately, they have plenty of evidence within their own borders of the nuclear horrors that exist.) I would argue they would not. The country would implode before it got that bad. No the next "big one" will be fought with economics and trade agreements. The majority will just shut out the troublemaker and he will wither on the vine. It just has to get bad enough for the majority to come together and see the need.

Its gamey as hell. You can hear mortars being fired from kilometers away. But you arent going to be able to pinpoint it like you describe unless its very close (within a few hundred meters). You have to consciously ask yourself if it gives you an unfair advantage (it does) and whether you should use that information (you shouldn't). If you feel its within close enough range you would be able to pinpoint it (think of a car backfiring on a street or a rifle shot in the woods and how difficult that can be to locate) than you could fire some sort of counterfire mission (mortars or arty) with a wide area fire mission and hope for the best. Back before we had counterfire radar that is how it was done (or from spotting aircraft) so its not farfetched. The challenge is pinpointing the target close enough to have a chance of disrupting their fire.

I dont suppose we can forego the hundred million threads and posts about east vs west and who has the best tactics, tanks, rifle, sexiest pixel butt, etc when CMRT comes out, can we? I cringe when I think about how much we went round and round when CMBB came out.

Steve, Sure, I'll take my old handle back. Been away for awhile. There being a war and all. Good to be back talking hypotheticals, history, etc.

I have fought in three different wars for the Good Ole USA (and I still serve). And I have wondered why the hell I was seeing so much blood split in each and every one. Believe me when I say I am extremely critical of my own government and rather objective about its role in the world. That being said, I still wholeheartedly believe it is the best system out there at the moment and will defend it to the fullest. Either on a forum such as this or with a rifle in my hands. Being willing to do so doesnt make me naive, misguided, uninformed or confused. My interest here is and always has been to simply discuss the pros and cons of different courses of action regarding the CMBS scenario and the current situation in Ukraine. Unfortunately we keep getting bombarded by posts telling us (Me personally actually) that we need a lesson in geopolitics. Its very frustrating and I (being a human being like everyone else) rise to the bait occasionally.

Having recently spent some time with French forces, I don't think we could keep them away.

Wow, this just became ridiculous, pointless, and totally uninteresting all at once.

This is about a game? Oh damn, I got my Conplan 2015 forum mixed up with my Battlefront.com one again. Sorry Guys!! Just playing a little what if Chris. Not trying to one up you guys or second guess. Its an interesting tactical problem, is all. Its like catnip.