Pete Wenman

@Combatintman  😉
 
 

Never had the decency to say publicly 'thanks Combatintman for the realistic map of Imber Village and scenario based on the map that you kindly made for us' though.

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

FM 100-2-2 gives details of Soviet river crossings
https://irp.fas.org/doddir/army/fm100-2-2.pdf
 
and has this to say
Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults. Although tanks may be attached to support motorized rifle assault crossings,a tank battalion usually crosses in the second echelon. However, a tank battalion could cross in the first echelon in a weakly defended sector. A tank battalion crosses a river by fording, by going over bridges, by being transported aboard ferries or on tactical pontoon bridging, or by snorkeling. Although Soviet tank crews receive periodic underwater training, snorkeling is the least-preferred option. Some elements snorkel across at one site while others cross elsewhere by other means. Sealing arras arc [areas are] selected near concealed routes about 3 to 5 kilometers from the  river. Snorkels are installed about 1 to 2 kilometers from the water barrier. Some tanks provide fire support for the crossing, and artillery is used for both direct and indirect fire. The far bank must be secured before tank snorkeling starts. Efficient traffic control is essential. If the traffic controller permits tank formations to mass, they become a lucrative target for enemy aviation and artillery. Tanks cross underwater in column formation at approximately 30 meter intervals. They cross at low speeds without shifting gears or halting. The tank must be halted to remove waterproofing before the turret can traverse and the main gun can fire.
I suspect the process remains much the same for the Russians
with that confirmed pretty much here
https://community.apan.org/cfs-file/__key/docpreview-s/00-00-13-80-40/2019_2D00_12_2D00_04-Russian-Deliberate-River-Crossings-_2800_Grau_2900_.pdf
Russian Deliberate River Crossings: Choreographing a Water Ballet
from 2019
P
 

A couple of random piccies 

P
 
  
 
P

FYI
 

FYI
 

Seems like everyone has to play CMBS before playing CMCW  Specifically RUS vs US or at least UKR vs RUS.

SPOILERS!!!
PS CMCW is pure gold! Kudos to the team - arguably the best release ever!

Recently, in the FI forum, some of us were sharing our experience of programming the AI when designing QB maps.
This is an interesting topic that I think should be immortalised in its own thread 😛
I've put my own meagre experimentation first (because it was first in that particular thread chronologically), but @kohlenklau has observed the behaviour of the AI much more scientifically; and I know there are others on the forum (including experienced designers like @benpark) who have also carefully observed how the AI allocates AI groups to forces.
I'm much lazier, I just playtest them, and if I have fun I give it a tick (also too lazy to search the forum for previous discussions of this topic, although I know it has cropped up in various contexts over years).
I'm really interested in what some of you more analytical designers have learnt, so I can apply it to my own maps
  
 
 
 
 
 

Enjoying it?  it was crazy good fun.  I cease-fired w about 20 minutes left, there was no more significant movement happening by red team.  I only got a tactical victory despite putting quite a hurt on them.  They got the two phase lines but not even close to the road junctions.  I knocked out 11 tanks and 33 APCs and caused ~65% casualties.  That MRB aint gonna bother anyone else in this war.  Only succeeded because I set up flank ambushes and didn't try to have long distance shoot out -- I learned that lesson a while back (those damn saggers and 125mm guns). 
I am starting to feel the attrition -- my infantry were shorthanded and short of dragons.

I think I collected the bill on the soviets.  I replayed Valley of Ashes, though having only gone partway through first time so didn't know complete soviet deployment and paths of advance.  Now knowing that I needed my M60s to engage at shorter range, I used woods & smoke to get them into good kill zones.  nearly all units spent much of the first 20+ minutes hiding in the woods w much of my force due to soviet air attacks.  I had my stinger teams out and did knock out multiple aircraft. 
Got into an excellent flanking position on the left, lost 2 of 3 tanks in heavy fighting but 3rd one had 10 kills total, including sneaking behind 3 tanks that were overwatch.  On the right side had one tank in woods that the enemy just couldn't hit and he had 11 kills.  Total victory at cost of 6 tanks and multiple APCs, plus 40+ casualties.  Not bad. 
GREAT battle, thanks to The_Capt et al

The SdKfz 251/3 Engineer half track comes to mind. Just a cost-ineffective way to transport a lot less men than in the 251/1 variant, but it’s in the game nonetheless because it fits real life TO&E. I buy them because I want to have a realistic feel to my formations. 

Correct - also the abundance of sand is not particularly reminiscent of northern Europe.  Nonetheless that is how they set up.  I was in the British Army during the Cold War and we would set up in very much a similar fashion.  The trick was to try and find an empty factory or a big enough farm with plenty of barns to set up in.

You make maps? ... everyday's a school day 😏

I have it. PM me with e-mail adress and I'll send it.

Yep it's the time. Check out the compass rose when in a scenario  - it contains a 24hr clock.
P

Uiii!!! You are right! Thanks!
 
I'm starting to think that I need reading glasses ...
 
Topic is finished!

Yep it's the time. Check out the compass rose when in a scenario  - it contains a 24hr clock.
P

HOLY **** IT WORKED! Finally I can play the demo at least of this game. I have learned a new lesson today, that OEM drivers are garbage. I now regret not trying this sooner. Thank you so much for everyone who's helped over the last few months.

And lo, mine eyes are open'd by your flawless rebuttal of my chains of thought.

Looking for any single player scenarios that feature the US tank thermal system.  I just got whipped by the T80/BMP combo in ‘Killing Time at Kirtorf’ and am looking to give Ivan the business as revenge.
Youtube vid of my defeat coming this weekend.

If you got this kind of impression from my comments above or elsewhere, then that was not my intention.

The NTC campaign is brutal, and it's supposed to be, as is the real NTC. You are supposed to treat it like a proper training scenario - failing forward, and potentially retrying different approaches.

As a quick point- almost everyone I've seen has gone for the hasty attack option at first. The briefing mentions that you'll have "more room to manoeuvre", which is presumably the appeal. Manoeuvre with what, precisely? You're essentially a platoon of tanks in a supporting combined arms company, and you're trying to attack into a Motor rifle battalion. One side there needs more room, and it 'aint you. This is the kind of lesson it's trying to teach.

As a personal anecdote, which obviously is entirely relative - for comparison, I lost a total of one TOW launcher in the first mission, and one tank and an empty M113 in the second - all losses which were avoidable. The first was me not being aware of how bad an idea ATGM duels are, and the latter because I was hasty and didn't cover a specific sight line. This was done blind and without reloads, but there was a lot of planning involved, including reading a couple of field manuals for preparation. The third I had trouble with, but that was pre-patch, so I was stuck with the option I didn't choose for the third mission - so two total victories and a minor defeat - the latter mostly due to the enemy air. The NTC campaign was one of my favourite experiences in Combat Mission, ever. It was very testing, and it forced you to learn a whole bunch of things really fast - most notably, that Shock Force teaches some really bad habits. If the tanks in NTC were replaced with Abrams, with no other changes, I imagine there would be very little challenge in that campaign.

Cold War is definitely pitched more difficult than usual for the CM games. There are no safety wheels - you can't use your M60s like Abrams, nor rely on Javelins (or Panthers, for that matter) as a fix-all solution to every problem. Even where there's an advantage, like the quality of the Soviet armour, using them correctly is far from simple.

The Tutorial missions are something which I think CM really needs more of. I've seen many comments of things like "Jackals are awful" in CMSF, or "2 inch mortars are pointless" in CMBN. Having a presentation of the thing working as it's supposed to work doctrinally gives you a good intro to the basics - as in, a textbook WW2 British platoon attack, supported by the 2 inch - if there was a scenario which could show how it's supposed to look, and if you can't win this, then you fundamentally don't know what you're doing.

The Soviet attack scenario is supposed to teach two things above all - the priority of mass, and the need for coordination between armour and massed fires. This is the baseline Soviet stuff, but doesn't represent a scenario you're ever really likely to see. The Meeting engagement tutorial is a far more realistic scenario, and does a good job of taking those principles and applying them to a vastly more complex and fluid battle-state. It's still a textbook engagement, so you shouldn't come close to losing when you understand what you're doing, but this represents a baseline that the scenarios and campaigns can build from. The first scenario of the Russian campaign is extraordinarily brutal, but it's fundamentally the same tactical problem as the second tutorial, just much more complex, with a far more active opponent. "It's like this, but..." is the foundation of most tactical problems.

So no, I don't think Cold War is "out of touch with reality", or even "too hard". It's hard, certainly, but the challenges can all be overcome, with the time and effort. Obviously that challenge may not appeal, and that's completely valid, but I don't think it's correct to claim that this is anything more than your opinion, and not some kind of objective measure of the thing.

Oh, the Womble resurfaces - hope you are good mate
P