Amedeo

Yet, for all the years it took to be published, I expected a lot of custom-made maps to be included. Moreover, for all the tables it contains, there's still more detail in the KOSAVE study, from which the book itself originated.
Don't get me wrong, it's a great book and I do not regret buying it. But, give its size and scope, I expected it to be the definitive (i.e. containing all the available detail) book on the southern pincer of Operation Zitadelle.
In my humble opinion. Glantz's book is good for a general overview of the entire operation, its origins and the strategic aftermath. Lawrence's book gives a detailed operational analysis of the actions in the southern part of the bulge, Zamulin's book is worth reading because, while accepting the fact that Rotmistrov's counterattack was a total disaster, it does try to explain why and how the Red Army managed to stop the German.
I think that the above mentioned books are complementary and are all worth buying and reading for an Eastern Front aficionado. After reading them, I came to the conclusion that:
1) The Germans were not fools in deciding to launch Operation Zitadelle 
2) The Soviet Army did indeed stop the Germans, although it didn't as it initially planned to 
3) The redeployment of some German élite divisions to the West was an effect of Zitadelle's failure, not a cause
Anyway, this is what I got from these readings. Your mileage may vary...

At the end there will always be a conflict between historical accuracy and playability in CM due to the compressed character of the fightings. 
Real fighting at company or batallion level would be an extremely boring thing in a game because of the often endless hours they lasted. 
The same with reports of (for example) huge numbers of destroyed enemy tanks - in most cases such situations were the result of catastrophic decisions by headquarters or bad misjudgment of leading officers on site - many CM Players would not assess such situations as enyoyable playing.
So, if in doubt, I will always try to prefer playability instead of pure reality.
So, what players can expect, is historical correct units, historical correct locations/dates/circumstances and as historical as possible built maps (depending on military maps, areal photos and old pictures). 80% of the officers names and ranks will be correct, too - for some officers I have made short portraits to improve the atmosphere. 
Fighting itself will be harsh, sometimes with limited options, often with much more tactical options than one will expect with first glance. 
 
Regards
Mr.X 

I thought I'd create a thread to document my efforts in creating a map of Orsogna, which was the site of some fierce battles between the 2nd NZ Division and German troops of the 26. Panzer-, 65. Infanterie-, and 1 Fallschirmjager- Divisions in December 1943.
Orsgona is in the province of Chieti in the Abruzzo region, 17km (10 mi) southwest of Ortona. It is situated on the edge of a plateau with a steep drop-off to the south and a large gully to it's north.

For my first attempt, I decided I'd base it on the area of 25 Battalion's attack and subsequent German counter-attack on the 3rd Dec:

I'd trace the contours using a screenshot from Google Maps:


The result wasn't too bad:

I was going to carry on with this, then @Butschi released his tool..
..and it's a game-changer. This is the same area but generated in the CMAutoEditor using data from a geotiff:

Similar shot from Google Earth:

(to be continued)

I just give you some tips how to use the snipers. I enjoyed this I do 'back chaining' let me explain.




I forgot to mention you highlight your original waypoint and change it also to hunt and drag it towards your point of deployment. I use always quick to start as it is a bright yellow. I crawl the last 8 meters so change hunt to slow. Once the firefight started he broke the German's morale. 
 

Ok, pre-Alpha disclaimer so details are subject to change but this is the first map in the Canadian campaign "On the Weser" - got big plans for this one. A Pete Wenman original:

Just southwest of a little town called Boffzen and south of Hoxter (From Google Earth):

Blow up of Canadian AO with rough zone of this map:

Put your favorite units in a battle, or your Wittmans or whatever you got with the story...  This doesnt have to be just bodycount, it could be one tank but it saved the day or whatever. Give me what you got, I know some old timers got some good ones
In a day or two when my battle finishes with Probus I shall tell you guys a tale of a battle where a horde of commies came storming through, preplanned artillery causing massive casualties and rumors that we had a spy in our ranks.  Almost all our ITOWs got killed by ATGM fire..  things looked bad.
Then the tank charge came.  On my left flank.  Looked like the whole red army was coming at my men.  I had 3 M60s TTS (vet and one crack crew) and one ITOW left.
I rushed my M60 over... and right when I was about to make contact.. the plan loosely being to fire retreat fire retreat etc, I remembered the smoke trick.   Crack M60A3TTS totally alone.  I dont have the names now but Ill have screens..  Long story short, using smoke, they literally stopped the soviet drive COLD. the Soviets tried rushing them, didnt work. Lotsa bounced projectiles, but they legit KO'd at least 12-15 T64s, 2-3 BMPs,1-2 trucks, and IDK how many infantry. It was INSANE. 
Finally my opp got ANOTHER damned 64, my crack crew long out of smoke, smoke rounds, the infantry around outta smoke, and its within 500m.  still 2 shots before they even got on my tank. this crew was so pimp. But the shots bounced.. The 125mm.. didnt.  Catastrophic explosion everyone KIA.  Im personally going to recommend the cmdr for the CMOH and the gunner, the crew Army Cross.
The T64? My other M60 schwacked him. Whew.  scary but stopped... right? then I hear the whine of a turbine engine.  'WTF *checks date* uh oh'

Playing the To Berlin campaign for Fire and Rubble, my Soviets had to defend against a German counterattack and I had a Soviet company commander in an M3 half-track hold off a platoon of German infantry by himself, the guy was like the Soviet Audie Murphy, every time the Germans tried to attack he'd hose them down with .50 cal fire until they broke, and they'd recover and keep attacking again and again. At one point I had him retreat into a ditch but he still was holding them off even though the Germans were only 30 or so meters away. Never again have I seen an exposed gunner last that long in a CM game, usually a random rifleman will just snipe them from 200m away.

I recently found an intelligence summary from 1982 by the Dutch Army that fits nicely with the data for the years 1979 and 1985 that I presented in one of my previous posts in this thread.

http://www.stichtingargus.nl/bvd/warschaupakt/intsum-82-2.pdf
On page 24 of the report one can find which Soviet divisions in GSVG were equipped with T-62 tanks and which one with T-64 tanks. It is implied that the divisions are equipped with a single tank type, however, if we just assume that the report simply states what can be considered the predominant tank in a given unit, we see that the data is totally compatible with the numbers we get from Holm's site.
In the following table I listed the most numerous tank model in each division. Data for 1979 and 1985 are from Holm's site (see my previous post for the detailed numbers) while data for 1982 is taken from the above mentioned report. This report not only is very interesting per se, and will be useful for CMCW scenario designers, but it also indirectly corroborates Holm's data since, as you can see, the fit is perfect: between 1979 and 1985 the listed units retained their equipment or upgraded it, no weird downgrades or inexplicable jumps.
 
1979
1982
1985
9 TD
T-62
T-62
T-80
11 GvTD
T-62
T-62
T-80
20 GvMSD
T-62
T-62
T-62
16 GvTD
T-64
T-64
T-64
21 MSD
T-64
T-64
T-64
94 GvMSD
T-64
T-64
T-64
207 MSD
T-62
T-64
T-64
7 GvTD
T-62
T-62
T-64
10 GvTD
T-62
T-64
T-64
12 GvTD
T-64
T-64
T-64
47 GvTD
T-64
T-64
T-64
79 GvTD
T-62
T-62
T-80
27 GvMSD
T-62
T-62
T-80
39 GvMSD
T-62
T-62
T-62
57 GvMSD
T-55
T-62
T-80
25 TD
T-64
T-64
T-64
32 GvTD
T-64
N/A
T-64
90 GvTD
T-64
N/A
T-64
35 MSD
T-62
T-64
T-64
 

@Combatintman Yes, I have a copy of the book by Fes'kov et alii you mentioned. You are right, there are a few inconsistencies but there's nothing better around (AFAIK, of course). BTW, there's a revised edition of the same work, dated 2013, titled: The Armed Forces of the USSR after World War 2: from the Red Army to the Soviet Army - part 1: land forces.
Of course Michael Holm used heavily this source, but the strength returns from 1979 and 1985 are probably from some Western intel source because in the aforementioned book I only found detailed figures for the end of the '80s. Moreover, the figures I gave above are obviously only an estimate to be taken with a (big) grain of salt, because they all sum up to the exact TOE totals for all the divisions listed. Here are the strength returns for Tank Divisions from the book relative to the end of the '80s (actually, the numbers seems to be from the 1990 CFE treaty returns, I couldn't find any difference, although I admit I didn't try too hard):

As can be seen, totals from each division vary wildly, so I doubt that in 1979 or 1985 the situation was very different. Moreover the 1985 figures are incompatible with the 1987 data one can find in Fes'kov:

It's worth noting that the information contained in these two tables comes from Lenskii & Tsybin's work: Soviet Land Forces in the last year of the Soviet Union.
And, in turn, the figures for 1st Jan. 1987 in the last table, ultimately come from a 1998 issue of Tekhnika i vooruzhenie.
For what concerns the OMGs, I presume you are well acquainted with the works of the late Richard Simpkin. I remember reading something in 1984 or 1985 but, although Simpkin's book and articles sparked debate in NATO circles, operational forward detachments were not a novelty in Soviet doctrine.
 
 

I've been working on a new system and I've built the Vassal engine for the campaign. 
Download link

So how it works is that each formation HQ has a certain amount of AP's (ACTION POINTS) .
Each unit that is on one of the highlighted hexes, must be given orders.

This practice will help myself in building the CM battle, if a delaying action is selected, I exit zone is placed on the map for the defending player.
Assault/Hold Position - I place capture points on the map for both sides to capture/hold.
Probe - Is really a recon in force order, a capture point is placed on the map for the defending player to hold the attacking player is checking out what's there but the defending player doesn't know that.
Place an order on top of the units just moved/placed, and be sure to right click and select 'mask'.
When the campaign starts, make sure the Soviet AP markers are topped up.

AP Costs
Move - 1 AP per unit chit. This moves units two white outlined hexes, the AP points are deducted from the formation HQ, in the example below it's the 3rd Bn HQ.

Assault/Probe - this costs 2 AP's to the attacking formation HQ.
Support assets - 1 AP per support, this brings in CAS and/or artillery support if it's available.
If unavailable they will appear like these.

Deploy formation - 1 AP cost to the Higher HQ (in this campaign the 17th GTR and the Blackhorse HQ).
Attach a unit from one formation to another - 1 AP cost to the Higher HQ, both units must be on the same hex or in the holding box before deployment.
The higher HQ's.

When the Soviet AP's are topped up the NATO commander gets to place one formation onto the battle map.
In this example, the NATO commander places B Company in Grusselbach, as he places each of the 'chits' onto the battle map he right clicks and selects 'mask' and then places a 'Delaying' order, which is also masked.

We now begin Turn one, the Soviet commander deploys his first formation, 1st Bn 17th GTR and the GTR HQ spends one AP to do so.
Notice that the NATO forces on the battle map are masked to the Soviet player.

The 1st Bn 17th GTR HQ orders his formation to move, 1 AP for each unit (3 AP's) to Assault (2 AP's) the NATO position for a total 5 AP's.

The NATO retreats to the next legal hex still with delaying orders.
The Soviet player declares that the 3rd Bn has finished it's actions and gives it Hold Position orders and then deploys the next formation.
This process goes on till the Soviet Higher HQ can't deploy anymore formations and that each formation has useable AP's left.
Now you might be wondering why the Soviets are the only one that get to move one turn one, lets say that they had the strategic surprise.
Each following turn, NATO gets to deploy/move one formation then the Soviets get to move one formation and so on till both sides pass then the turn marker is moved one square to the right.

Ok, I got some information on 84mm gun armed Centurions. It looks like our best bet is the Canadian army. They purchased 274 Mk 3 (84mm gun) Centurions from 1952-1953. In 1971 supposedly they had 322 Centurions, of which 81 had 105mm guns (meaning the other 241 had 84mms), and they started replacing their Centurions with Leopard 1s in 1977. Only one regiment of four would be fully equipped with Mk 11 (105mm gun) Centurions before they were fully replaced in 1979. So it sounds like the majority of the Centurions we'll be getting with the Canadian army in the early years will be 84mm. Though it sounds like the regiment with the Mk 11s was the one stationed in Germany, so any 84mm Centurions will have to come as reinforcements.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/centurion#:~:text=The Centurion went on to,and operated them until 1979.

Well, according to Wikipedia: "The M48A3 was withdrawn from Europe by October 1961, being replaced by the M60 tank. As US armored and cavalry units rotated out of combat deployments to South Vietnam most of their M48A3s were either directly transferred to the South Vietnamese Army or to Thailand. FORSCOM withdrew the M48A3 from combat service with both the US Army and US Marine Corps in 1973, replacing them with the M60A1. Some M48A3s continued in service with National Guard units until 1979."
So, if this information is correct, there were no USAREUR units equipped with M48s during CMCW timeframe. Some 90mm gun armed M48A3 might be considered for the upcoming BAOR module (since it extends the game's timeframe back to 1976) in the same way as NG M48A5 tanks are included in the current base game.

For what concerns the ability of the 90mm gun to frontally penetrate the T-55 tank, a member of the TankNet forum that had access to primary sources describing the results of the live firing tests carried on by the Yugoslav Army, posted there data that are relevant to the issue. 
Yu guns vs armor tests of 1960s... - Page 2 - Armor Scientific Forum - tanknet.org
It's actually M47 vs T-54 but I presume that the figures given are comparable to the  M48 vs T-55 matchup.
Here's the relevant quote from the above thread:
90mm M36 gun from M47 tank firing AP, HVAP and HEAT
T-33 AP fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m
M304 subcalibre fails to penetrate glacis even @ 100m
M431 HEAT penetrates glacis, but fails to fuse if side angle is more then 20deg.
T33AP penetrates front turret @ 350m
M304 subcalibre penetrates front turret @ 750m
M431 HEAT penetrates front turret
T33AP penetrates frontal part of the side of the turret @ 850m
M304 subcalibre penetrates frontal part of the side turret at any practical range
M431 HEAT penetrates frontal part of the side turret
All round penetrate rear part of the side turret at any practical range.
Conclusion:
Amount of M431 HEAT rounds in ammo load should be increased, and load of T33 AP be reduced.
Frontal engagement of the new foreing tanks is to be done only with M431 HEAT round.
Engagement from ambush position can be done with M304 subcalibre and M431 HEAT at any range and T33 AP at ranges less then 1000m.
Problem of M431 round failing to fuse at angles more then 60deg is to be fixed with production of domestic HEAT.
That round should be also capable of being fired from M3A1 gun mounted on SO-90 M-36. without sagnificent modifications to the gun or vehicle.
 

From FM 7-20:
2-7. COMMANDER'S INTENT
The commander's intent drives mission tactics. It is the commander's stated vision, which defines the purpose of the operation and the end state with respect to the relationship among the force, the enemy, and the terrain. It should also include how this end state will support future operations. (Appendix A shows how the commander's intent is integrated into the OPORD.)
a. The overall purpose of the mission is more important than the individual assigned tasks. Each subordinate commander must know why and how his assigned tasks relate to the overall concept of the operation. Then, if the situation changes and contact with higher headquarters is lost, the subordinate can use his initiative to achieve the desired end results.
b. The battalion commander has a dual responsibility. He must understand the intent of the brigade and division commanders (two levels up) and must ensure his intent is understood at company and platoon levels (two levels down). The commander's intent paragraph in the OPORD should begin with the words, "My intent is..." so it can be understood and relayed to subordinates easily.
c. A clear commander's intent enhances agility, timing, and initiative at all levels. It helps in shifting the main effort on a fluid battlefield.

Okay, I have to apologise to all concerned and congratulate @Chibot Mk IX.  You are totally correct.
Here's what I saw (from a slightly different angle):

Note the selected T34/85 in the background.  But as you can see, it was not he who fired the scary blast.  Next turn an OT-34 appeared next to the T34/85, and he was the real culprit.
And Dave, I'm just loading up the current turn, with you shortly 😉.

Hi @Butschi - I keep looking at this thread and thinking ... must help - but have been a bit overwhelmed by RL stuff.  This is a shorter answer than I'd have liked but something's better than nothing.
First up, your MRR does have four battalions but once you task organize them by giving a tank company from the regiment's tank battalion to each of the three motor rifle battalions you end up with three manoeuvre elements.  Advancing three-up with all three of your battalions would; therefore, be extremely unusual. 
There's no mention of reconnaissance elements in the scheme of manoeuvre - if the finished campaign thing is going to do the whole regiment's advance, rather than just the southern axis you have scope for a series of recce battles employing elements of the divisional reconnaissance battalion and the regimental reconnaissance company.  In fact, even if you only stick with the southern axis you can still have some reconnaissance battles using those elements.
I absolutely wouldn't stretch your narrative to include T-80s in the ORBAT of a Cat III division.  This type of division would be rounded out by reservists who had probably finished their conscription period years and years before - it would be hard enough for them just to recall their skills and drills on the equipment they had used during their service, let alone learn to operate a newer piece of equipment.  Not only that, even Cat I divisions were not fully equipped with T-80 by 1980.  We don't seem to know what 50 GMRD was equipped with in 1980 but we know it had T-62, BMP-1, BTR-60 and BTR-70 in 1985.  I would suggest that in 1980, 69 GTR would have had T-62 and BMP-1, while the three MRRs would have had T-55 and BTR-60.  You can see how far down the food chain it was by looking at its artillery allocation in 1985, the 152mm D-1 which is a towed gun dating back to WW2. 
Regarding the US - I can't give a huge amount of detail but you'll see that the US 5th Division of which 256 Brigade was a part only had 3 tank battalions and 3 mechanized infantry battalions in 1978 - it was therefore massively understrength and I doubt that situation would have rectified itself much before 1980.  Link below, Table 35, page 38 refers:
Maneuver and Firepower: The Evolution of Divisions and Separate Brigades (army.mil)
I hope this helps.

I decided to browse through Battle Order's videos to see what we've got to look forward to. This is the British rifle section we'll have through this timeframe (saved the video URL at the timestamp for the late 60s-mid 80s section): 
 
So it looks like an 8 man rifle section consisting of a four man rifle group (plus the section leader) and a three man GPMG group (including the 2IC). That'll be five L1A1 rifles in the rifle group, with two of the riflemen being equipped with L1A1 rockets (M72 LAWs) by default, with a possibility of equipping more of them with L1A1 rockets. And two L1A1 rifles and an L7A1 GPMG in the GPMG group. As we get into the 80s it looks like one of the L1A1 rockets is replaced by the L14A1 MAW recoilless rifle (Carl Gustav) with the MAW gunner's rifle being replaced by the Sterling SMG.
Should be interesting.
 

I can help: I was around 12 in the 80s when my father was serving near Frankfurt, so I have expertise in the French army. Also remember the Canadians because we did our food shopping in their stores. I propose myself as artistic director with my in-depth knowledge as shown by this drawing drawn from my childhood memories:

One of the cool things about CMCW is that we'll be able to compare NATO doctrine.

The British, the West Germans and the US were all trying to solve the same problem, but did so in very different ways. Where the US were attempting to create depth through elastic defence, up-front, then rotating back, the British were more about static defence in depth and counter-attack. Where the TOW is really the centrepiece of US defence, for the British it's Chieftain, and anything armed with Swingfire is in a more supporting role. They also tend to embed recce assets down to the company level, so perhaps a pair of Scimitars in front of a mechanised company team.

Well that is a loaded question to be honest.  Bil H will no doubt chime in but a few factors came into play as I recall:
- Resources.  We can take a really good shot at BAOR and not cripple ourselves in development for years - along with the other BFC titles.  The core team is pretty small and we were looking for a quick, but solid, follow up to the main game.  Germany would have been a lot more work, as would  any other NATO nations, and the French were just a non-starter.  Those modules will take much longer, particularly in vehicle modelling and artwork.  BAOR had a lot of new vehicle models but much more manageable in the timelines for a first DLC.
- Locale.  The Northern Plain was actually where the most likely Soviet Main effort was going to fall.  Hate to admit it but Fulda was a bit of a sideshow in the overall Soviet plan.  It made sense game wise simply because the largest market for the game is the US, and we had a lot of details on this fight - US research is a dream as they put everything out there, Canadians are a nightmare.  That said we really wanted to do the northern plains from the start and historically that is BAOR or the Germans.
- Expertise.  We had experts on both UK and Canadian orbats right out the gate, which made research a lot easier.  I joined in 1988 and had a lot of my old battlebox stuff to pull from and some old timers I still know from up the day.  On the UK side we had similar expertise.
- Timeframe.  Late 70s, early 80s is really the “tipping point” of the Cold War.  It was when the doctrine and equipment of both sides was pretty balanced, each offsetting the others strengths and weaknesses.  Before this you get the nuclear armies, which were just nuts. And after you get the  western advantage leaning into overmatch and then we start to look a lot like CMSF or BS.
- Straight up cool factor.  So how would the UK done against the Soviets?  Canadians are fun because they mix European and US kit.  You wanna know how a squadron of Leo’s would have done…well let’s find out.  Not saying the other nations are not interesting but when you add everything up it just made more sense to do BAOR next and they would be fun to play.
As to “how will they play”…totally honest…no freakin idea.  We also had no idea on the main game.  It wasn’t until I played those first few scenarios while we were early in did we see that we were onto something.  BFC doesn’t balance for gameplay or market. They literally plug in the data from research and then throw it at each other in game. The balance is almost entirely emergent.  When we do up scenarios and campaigns there is always a level of balancing that goes on but this is macro stuff like force size and enablers.  For CMCW we were amazed at how little balancing we had to do. I designed the campaigns and scenarios based on doctrine on both sides and basically how they would have gone into a fight with each other.  The fact that these led to tightly balanced fights that require deep understanding of what each side can do was all pretty much emergent design.

You've got it backwards. Remember, as CMSF and CMBS showed, first there is a BFC game, then the war starts! 😁😬

As someone still on the Australian Army's books ... I am glad that Steve never mentioned such a game in this year's outlook.

At the end of my last video I promised to upload the bits of the conversation that @domfluff and I had and that didn't make it into the video, as a podcast. That's up now. Also included is an extra bit that we recorded later, where we answer some of the questions that were frequently asked in the comment section.
So, if you've got a long commute ahead of you, or it's your turn to do the dishes, or there is some other reason why you can't play CM.... here you go 😉.
 
 

I generally feel like your typical cold war QBs should be Attack/Defend.
Even what would be referred to as a Soviet "meeting engagement" isn't the same thing as a "meeting engagement" in CM/wargaming terms, which typically means "an even fight" or something similar. Instead the term refers to an attack from the march.
With the points from an Attack, a Large qb has enough points for a full BTR MRB, with sufficient artillery support, and a huge qb has enough points for a full BMP MRB with some change.
This force was a little cut down from what would be ideal - an entire BMP company was left behind, and I had lass artillery than I'd like. 
Priorities though:
I start with the combined arms, task group formation.
It's important to have a mixture of infantry, armour and air defence. The pair of Shilkas I had here were very important, because the US had some significant air assets which weren't discussed in the video. You always want two.
Dropping a company as "off-map reserve" is fine doctrinally, sinve that force can exploit your success, so that's a reasonable option.
Dropping armour is suspect, you don't get a ton in an MRB, and you need them to do work.
Artillery then is the interesting bit. I've said before that I don't know how to attack with a red battalion with less than three batteries (a battalion, if you like) of artillery (that is 18 tubes of something).
The reason for this is that the battalion should be accepting three tasks, and each task needs to be enabled by artillery support.
Each battery should have a single FO.
The 120mm mortars are organics to the battalion, so should be taken - since the call-in times for those are reasonable, in my fires plan I often leave those as a "reserve", ready to be reactive, rather than proactive.
Next up are your standard regimental artillery, the 122mm self propelled gun battalion, and divisional artillery, the 152mm self propelled gun battalion and the battalion of rocket artillery.
The lower level assets will have less boom, greater rate of fire, and faster call-ins.
122mm should be your default in CMCW (in cmbs this is now the 152mm). A medium mission on max duration lasts something like 12-15 minutes, which is a lot of rounds going downrange, and a lot of denial.
The 152s have significantly more boom, and a mission there can last 30 minutes total, so is ideal for denying key terrain, or digging out handprints.
Rocket artillery is a specialised tool, and it's hard to use well in a cm context. Ideally it's doing counter-battery fire, or it's targeting fixed positions and hoping to actually kill things, where the other two can aim to suppress or deny. The best generic use-case I've found for it is to target an urban area - Soviets tend to find urban combat especially difficult, so a couple of BM-21 barrage can help a lot.
All of the other artillery is more highly specialised (the big mortars are bunker-busters, for example), so should mostly be ignored.
Ideally, I'd take the battalion mortars, and three batteries of artillery, possibly in a mixed load, with their intended tasks defined well in advance.
Artillery have four jobs - suppression, denial, destruction and obscuration, and each of those assets is good at different things.
In the above QB I have battalion mortars and two batteries of 122mm - less than I'd like, but still hitting that minimum of three groups of artillery.
One nice thing about thinking in threes is that you can continuously adjust and move around these fires having two hitting things, whilst a third adjusts in on to the next step.
One thing that you do see in the video is this continual adjustment of fires - the tempo gains that I'd made allowed the fires to be adjusting whilst free whisky was reacting, so they were able to start landing when he was just getting into position.
Likewise, the same advantages in tempo meant that I was frequently ahead of where his artillery was falling - he was forced to react to things that were by now firmly in the past.
 
 
 
 

I asked Domfluff to help me out in creating a video about Soviet military doctrine in the Cold War era, and how those principles can be applied in a Combat Mission scenario/QB. He played a game against me as the Soviet Army, gave me an arse kicking, and then sat down with me and explained why he did what he did. The result is the video down below!
 

Yup.

HQ support teams (XO teams) are your C2 links to other formations.

Imagine if you had a (weirdly stripped down for the purposes of clarity) force like this:


An infantry battalion, consisting of an Infantry company, and an armour battalion consisting of a single armour platoon.

The armour and infantry in this case are part of different battalions, and so will not share their C2 network with each other. Spotting contacts that the infantry see may never get to the armour, and if it does it will not do so swiftly or efficiently.

However, all units will share C2 horizontally within four action spots. This means if you do this:



Then the Battalion HQ will remain in contact with both their XO and the infantry company via their radios, and the XO can keep the armour in C2 via horizontal sharing. That way the armour can benefit from the spotting information that the infantry can do, and you can do that whole "combined arms" thing.