Doug Williams

Combat Mission, the Role Playing Game. I wanna play a tank class (specifically the Abrams).
 
Now we just need a healer, crowd control, and a couple of DPS. ;-)

This is the third thread I've seen lately asking about recon vehicles, so I'm just going to use the same response
 
"All recon vehicles are challenging to use in Combat Mission because they are intended for operational or grand tactical level reconnaissance, ie. to report to brigade HQ if there's enemy forces in an area the size of a CM map and if they are moving, blocking roads or such. After that they're just poorly armed and armoured vehicles with slightly better sensors than usual and should be used accordingly, ie. with special care."
 
If you have a huge map with large unoccupied areas then dedicated recon vehicles with good sensors may be of actual nominal use. But if not, ignore that they are recon vehicles and just consider their combat capabilities. Also be prepared to leave some of the vehicles in a safe place and use the crews for foot recon if it looks like a trap. Another thing is to think that cavalry's first objective is to determine where the enemy isn't, so don't send them headlong against where you suspect they will be but use them to secure flanks and approach avenues. Just sometimes you don't have that luxury...

Not even for the attacker in an attack scenario/QB? That takes away half the advantage of being the attacker. I have no problem with the attacker doing a pre planned arty strike, but the defender never should, and neither side should in a meeting engagement. That's pretty much my only "house rule".

No you should mention it, 8 years of service is not a joke  

I shouldn't even mention it, because my time in the service was nothing compared to most of you, but I did spend eight years in a reserve MASH unit, starting in 1983. Mostly what we did was go out in the in the field and practice putting up GP large and GP medium tents. I got out shortly before Desert Storm. The unit I was in did get called up and went to Iraq. I think the army has decommissioned all MASH units now, in favor of taking the wounded to larger field hospitals. I suppose transportation is so much better now that there isn't much need to have a MASH unit tagging along close to the front.

I don't think that 60mm mortar ammo. I think it's bazooka rounds.
 
I've played around with the ammo dumps, but only for the Germans. I can't remember if there were any mortar rounds, but when you pick the supply platoon from the units in the editor, you can set whether it's an "infantry" ammo supply or a "weapons" ammo supply.

Just to clarify... 66mm HE.. are rifle grenades.... 60mm HEAT.. are bazooka rounds.

Ok, so the new supply platoon 
 

 
 
It seems, regarding mortar ammo, it only comes with 60mm ammo -  is there a way to get more 81 mm mortar ammo for the yanks. 
 

 
 
(It seems no matter how much the game designers bless us - some of us find something else to whine about)   lol 
 
 

Nasty. Long range. Every country's infantry is more dangerous than the German army in the WW2 games.
 

Yeah, the Javelins are really nasty and I never grow tired of watching them fly.
 

And precision munitions that are available for many batteries on all sides are truly wild.
 

One thing I will say about APS system is be careful with your own guys. Nothing sucks more than looing a squad of your men because your tank's APS system triggered to counter an enemy missile. Man it sucks.

Oh boy, yeah both sides have plenty of new toys that make the LAW look like a pea shooter. Lets go through the list (Mainly because I have far too much time on my hands).
 
AT-4- Basically the replacement for the LAW its a single fire hand-held anti tank/emplacement rocket launcher, US squads are equipped generously with the AT-4. This baby can be fired from up to 300 meters away, after that its accuracy is diminished severely, however distance does not decrease penetration power, it is fully capable of penetrating up to 450mm of armor. Unfortunately it will probably have trouble with more advanced Russian tanks like the T-90 that sport Kontakt-5 ERA armor, firing from the side or rear though it is probably a guaranteed penetration and kill. The AT-4CS which is modeled in game can also be fired safely from inside buildings, without risk of injury from back-blast.
 
AT-4 in action-
 
Javelin Missile Launcher- The Javelin is one of the US strongest hand-held anti tank launcher systems in the world (Probably the best in the world honestly, no bias here I promise ), its effective range is about 2500m but it requires at least 75 to arm and acquire the target, it is also fire and forget. The Javelin consists of two parts, the CLU (Command launch unit) and the tube itself that carries the missile (Which is disposable), the javelin can be reused as long as i has a CLU unit, and missiles of course. When a Javelin is fired there is no warning, it is all done through passive IR tracking on the CLU, an interesting characteristic to the javelin is that once it is fired, it will climb high up into the sky above the target and attack the top of the tank, this means that there really is no way to defeat a javelin missile in that launch mode, it is to high for an APS (Active protection system) system to defeat and top armor isn't very thick on any Russian tank. A javelin can also fire horizontally, but this means it is at the mercy of an APS like arena which can knock it out of the sky. Make sure to grab Javelins out of the back of Bradleys, they are invaluable, and tip the scales immensely in US favor against armor. Oh yeah and don't miss they cost about 80K a pop!
 
Javelin Missile in action-
 
TOW 2-B Anti tank missile- The infamous TOW ATGM missile is usually mounted on APC's such as the Bradley, but can also be mounted on a tripod for infantry use, the TOW is wire guided and its launcher contains its own thermal imaging system for target aquisition. What is special about the TOW-2B (Emphasis on the B is that it is also a top attack munition much like the javelin, only the TOW-2B detonates above the target horizontally and fires an penetrator straight into the top, the TOW is vulnerable to APS though so be careful!
 
TOW-2B in action- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QUMxZ34Ptco
 
These are the main "hand-held" anti tank weapons that the US uses...with weapons like the Javelin its almost like were cheating isn't it?

Time to close the door on another episode of "Steam, or BFC goes out of business", IMO.
 
Hey, I think I'll go ahead and order CMBS now, even though I was previously going to wait until it was released. :-)

The most recent changes that BFC has implemented regarding their installation procedures have eliminated most, if not all, of your complaints. BFC has, for some time now, allowed unlimited downloads of any game purchased from them. BFC has stated before, in these very forums, that should they ever "go out of business" they will make sure that all software purchased from them will be installable and playable. 
 
Like I said earlier, I'm not against Steam. I have purchased probably 20 games from Steam. It's just that, to me, whether or not a game is on Steam makes little difference to my purchasing decisions. All this "give me Steam or give me death" nonsense makes me just shake my head.

Time to close the door on another episode of "Steam, or BFC goes out of business", IMO.
 
Hey, I think I'll go ahead and order CMBS now, even though I was previously going to wait until it was released. :-)

You know you really are such a nice guy to interact with. It gives me such a wonderful impression of the kind of folks I will meet as BF moves to Steam. Steve can we do this right away so I can interact more with overly arrogant disdainful elitist people who seem to have a hobby of rebuilding their systems continually and then somehow think they can argue for the mainstream? Pretty please? I was gonna squeeze my n**s in a vice, but this seems like a much simpler alternative.

Dude maybe you need steam cause you spend far too much fricken time re downloading games after rebuilding a system rather than playing them. Nice handle by the way, it really fits you.

Simple - their current model and growth plan is working. They have spent what 10 years moving to CMx2 and developing their plans to move ahead with their product based on their analysis of their market and product? It has actually been despite what folks keep saying, very successful. Think about it, as the economy was sinking BF was able to grow (yes we all know and love Phil, but Phil hasn't always been here). They have developed a plan to keep all titles current and right now have 3 titles out, 2 more coming and quite a few more on the horizon (I am for arguments sake only including product that will see continued development). So along comes this 800 lb gorilla online retail outlet that was never part of their plan. They took a first look and didn't like what they saw. So they went back to work improving the game etc. and they have a portion of their base, let's be optimistic and say we have 3 dozen people here adamantly pushing steam. If it were you, would that really sway your business model if you were already doing pretty good in terms of your target goals? Keeping in mind you don't know anyone these people and other than their experience shopping on steam, none of them have any experience truly relevant for the decision you have to make and the risk you have to accept. Would you really concern yourself with their advice? No offense to anyone here but I know I wouldn't. Unless I had some really good reason FOR MY BUSINESS there is no way I'd be swayed by a handful of people I do not know and very little of the argument that can truly be substantiated has to do with a positive business plan for BF.

Thought experiment  : The trouble is not the $100 or whatever, it's the work that would need to be done to get CM in synch with Steam's method.
Say it took 3 months ( made-up figure of course, but unlikely to be a trivial amount of time ). That's 3 months of work for HALF of BFC's programming staff ( assuming 1 person could do it ). That's time they're not spending releasing new game, be it Black Sea or Bulge or whatever's next or patching bugs or adding new features. Maybe they can't financially factor in that kind of extra non-productive time - in that scenario, already the Steam experiment HAS to work or they're in deep do-do.
 
It's just not as simple as "just sell something on Steam".
 
 
Existing CM players probably wouldn't pirate a CM ( or any ) game. But what about new potential customers ? They might. They're not loyal fans yet.

 

I respectfully disagree with this point - a lot of us who have played most of BFC's games feel we get a lot more for our cash due to the replayability of the game - one of the commenters on the article said he had 750 games on Steam.
I already struggle to find enough hours simply to play BFC's 3 CMx2 offerings + the 2 CMx1. That guy clearly isn't looking for replayability. I can't see him investing 10-20 man-hours in any of BFC's games' learning curves. We inhabit different worlds.
 

Again, I fail to see the difference to Steam. On Steam, many patches are free and Modules aka DLC is not.
The time to install modules, patches and activation problems is a once-off issue unless you move your stuff from hard drive to hard drive regularly. Bad content ? I don't quite know what that is. Is that scenarios you don't like or what ?
 

It has been said many times in this thread, but exposure is not the same as sales. Especially if many people who didn't like the game ( cf. learning curve ) give it bad reviews.
 

This one has been mentioned before, but I just don't see the relevance - What if Steam went out of business ? Exactly the same applies.
 
 
Edit: Dang, majorly ninja'd. Oh well.

Trust a third party but not the vendor?
 
Convenience- there may be an argument there, but I personally don't buy it.  However I get there are people who feel just going to steam or steam launcher or something is more convenient than me hitting my CM exe and launching my game.  Keep in mind I use Steam, I have first hand experience on a regular basis.  I find nothing about steam to work so much more conveniently.
 
Value for whom? The company we need to keep making the game is making less money per sale.  I really object to the whole steam rational that I see over and over on any thread involving steam folks and that is they are friggin cheap.  No offense to steam users here, I know you are paying full price for CM and would likely be happy to spend the same amount at steam for the game just for being able to have it in your steam catalog.  However back to that article, look at how much of the comments section is people going on and on about what they bought for half price and the mid week madness etc.  There is a large segment of that community that feels they should never be obligated to pay full price for something.  I find that annoying and disrespectful of the amount of effort it takes to do this and how few gaming houses there are doing good stuff.  Yes you can argue that CM doesn't have to do sales, but that then takes away a significant portion of the same audience that is supposed to be this wider base for Battlefront there. It is pretty senseless to keep trying to convince BF that there is a major market for them untapped, when they are comfortable with their current market growth and business plan.  The current one works and is inherently risk free because they have already been doing it.  Steam represents an unknown and therefore potential risk.  It is also a certain amount of effort BF would have to expend beyond what they are doing introducing more angst and effort.  There really isn't from their view much of an upside if you start with, "the current model is working, why fix something that isn't broken?"

When approaching infantry transport:
 
Anything that has four wheels is functionally the same as a jeep.  The exceptions to this are the american HMMWVs that fit MK-19s, TOW missiles, or what looks like a big box.
 
   Tangent: MK-19 has already been discussed.  Its murderous against infantry, unarmored vehicles, and some of the APC type targets can be knocked out by it with some luck
                  Treat the TOW version a lot like a 17 pound gun that's somehow merged with a speedy prime mover.  You don't want to place it somewhere it can be shot at at all, but it will reap a terrible toll on tanks if you give it a chance.
                  The Big box is the LRAS3, which is one of the most powerful sensor systems in the US Army.  The upside is it is a great tool for calling for support, or keeping sneaky things away from your flank.  The downside is it is not especially better at either of those than an Abrams, and is knocked out by anything more than small arms fire.  This sensor is also mounted on the Stryker scout vehicle.
 
 
Anything with 6-8 wheels/tracks and a machine gun: Treat like a halftrack.  They're really not that well armored, but are great for getting infantry forward fast.  Semi-exceptions to this:
 
    The BTR/MTLBs with 30 mm guns are great against not-tank type vehicles, and very good at suppressing or killing enemy infantry.  
    The Stryker with MK19 is just good enough to use forward, great at digging out infantry from buildings, or suppressing trenchlines.  
 
IFVs (tracked things with troops, some sort of autocannon, and ATGMs)
 
Imagine if your halftracks, light tanks, and AT vehicles all had a beautiful baby!
 
    Treat them like halftracks until they get to the point where they can deposit troops, once the troops are kicked out, then feel less nervous about using them as the mini-tanks they can be.  In a lot of ways, think of them like the M5 tanks from World War Two, they're great against other light vehicles, they're amazing against infantry, but you do not want it anywhere near something that can be called "anti-tank" or a real tank for that matter. 
 
Re: ATGMs
 
Here's the important caveats to remember when operating ATGMs from any platform (except the Javelin)
1. Bullets are faster than missile. The longer you fire the missile from, the longer it takes to impact, the more time the enemy has to react to missile.  It takes a TOW missile about 30 seconds to reach its max range around 3750 meters, that's enough time for the enemy to pop smoke, or return fire with a tank gun, which could very well kill the launching crew before the missile is even close to the target.  To this end it can be wise to ignore max range shots in favor of letting the enemy close in a bit (or it takes a tank shell 2ish seconds to go to 4 KM, it's flight time is fairly constant, while your missile fired at 2000 meters will only take 15ish seconds, which is a much harder thing to react to than 30 seconds)
 
2. ERA is built to ruin your ATGM.  APS also will wreck your day.  With that said, both systems degrade the more missiles they have to deal with.  To that end firing more missiles is often a good solution, so rather than spreading out your fires, massing 2-3 missiles on one tank will often overwhelm the APS (or deplete it's ammunition), and strip away a lot of the ERA protection.  
 
Also when playing against other players, it's much more likely they'll reverse out of an engagement if one of their tanks gets piled on by a few missiles, vs the fire being more spread out.
 
3. Reloading takes a bit.  This is especially true with vehicles like the Bradley or BMP series that have their launchers external to the vehicle.  When engaging with ATGMs, don't be afraid to mass like I said earlier, but hold a few launchers in reserve to continue to engage while your first salvo is being reloaded.
 
4. Mass your missiles.  If you've got two or even three different flavors of missiles, find their average optimal engagement area, and plan to hit the enemy in that range.  Using the Americans as an example the max effective range on the Javelin is 2500 meters or so.  To that end, holding off on firing off your TOWs until the enemy is 2000-2500 meters out ensures that target area is saturated with missiles, and rather than returning fire effectively, the enemy is evading and trying to leave the kill zone.
 
5. Trees give bad vibes.  Anything that is described as "wire guided" needs to be kept away from trees and similar obstructions to ensure the missile's guidance wire doesn't get snagged and cause the missile to rather dramatically miss the target.
 
Random errata:
 
1. Q. Which American units are spotters for artillery and aviation?
 
    A. All of them. Some are better at it than others, but if it's a team with a radio or digital communications it can call for a fire mission.  Plan accordingly from both ends for that one.
 
2. Borg spotting actually does kind of exist now.  Given the advances in battle tracking, all US, and many higher tech Russian units can share situational awareness to varying degrees.  They may still not be able to engage, but if the scouts up front spot your dudes sneaking along, odds are the rest of the force now has at least a very strong idea where your forces are at vs vaguely there's enemy somewhere up front.  
 
3. Fear the Abrams.  No.  Really.  Fear it.  It is the apex predator in this game.  If the enemy has them, you really need to have a plan on how and where to kill them vs simply having some AT assets on hand.  The APS and ERA ones appear especially dangerous at this point.

Obviously that is complete nonsense and those people are clearly figments of our imagination. Steve and his decades of savvy business experience have proven decisively that everyone who will ever be interested in Combat Mission is already buying it from this site.
 
Good to see Tim Stone butting in on this. His articles also played a pretty major role in convincing Matrix to join Steam.

It is a poor man's AT weapon.   Modern warfare tends to be a 'come as you are' warfare because gone are the days of factories pumping out X number of tanks or aircraft per day like in WW2.  Modern equipment is so complex and so expensive that it takes months to produce and will take considerable time to replace when lost.  
 
The MT-12 is a product of a mind set typical of Soviet thinking of throw nothing away, it may have use somewhere, even if it is just training reservists.  In a 'Come As You Are' war, such weapons will use in third echelon units and as replacement weapons when the higher priced and more capable weapons get attrited to the point that it is either use the older piece of equipment or do without.
 
Let's face it, a Abrams is going to laugh in the face of a MT-12, because it is going to do very little to a Abrams.  But to a Hummer or a not upgraded Bradley or Stryker, the weapon is still dangerous.
 
That said, I am not going to be a happy soldier if I am told that WW2 era anti-tank gun is going to be my AT weapon to face off with modern tanks with...

cool list. But 80k is stupidly expensive for something you could make for less than 10k

In a nutshell,
 
Modern infantry are far more lethal than their WW2 counterparts - in all aspects.  A modern infantry squad will have high rate of fire assault rifles with impressive ranges, usually one or more LMG gunners and the standard rifleman usually will have a grenade launcher on the assault rifle.  Depending on the nationality, there will be a designated marksman with a weapon to engage targets out to 800 metres.  Depending on nationality, there may be a dedicated AT gunner or some other specialist weapon (like for the US Army, the XM-25 anti defilade rifle).  Anyone in the squad can carry disposable AT weapons, so depending on scenario and availability of AT weapons, each soldier can carry one.
 
Disposable AT weapons are serious threats to all armor.  Some tanks like Abrams/T-90 may be able to weather a few light AT weapon but for the most part, unless the vehicle has got a Active Protection System or Explosive Reactive Armor, a hit from even a light AT weapon is going to wreck the vehicle crew's day.  Now remember, a modern 8 man squad may be carrying up to 8 LAW, so modern vehicles need to be very wary and alert to enemy infantry.
 
Anti Tanks weapons a step up for LAWs are even more capable - they have longer ranges, are guided (meaning very high hit probabilities) and are even more capable against heavy armor.  They are also very portable so anticipate their presence in numbers on the battlefield.   Systems like Javelin are game changes - they are top attack and autonomous guided system, meaning the gunner can fire the missile and immediately bolt for cover with the missile steering itself and top attacking the target to avoid ERA and APS defensive systems.
 
One shot kills are common on the modern battlefield.  Gone are the days of WW2 tanks duels where it may take a half dozen shots to seal the fate of a tank depending on the tank matchup and range.  Modern tanks can put a round in the pickle barrel at ranges of 3000-4000 metres and do it all day long, which means engagement ranges are typically far longer than usual engagement ranges in WW2.
 
Modern sensors and optics means expect to be seen clear across the map, day or night.  Thermal imaging means even infantry across the map will be spotted with frustrating regularity unless kept to low ground or heavy cover.
 
WW2 hardpoints like bunkers and the like do not offer the protection against weapons.  Modern armies have specialized weapons or ammunition (like thermobaric warheads) designed to kill infantry in bunkers and buildings so depending on the situation and scenario, bunkering up is to trap yourself in a death trap.  Like wise, modern artillery systems and certain weapon systems (anti cover weapons systems like programmable airburst rounds) make short work of infantry in trenches or behind walls.
 
Modern armies have high mobility and can rapidly move and reorient on the battlefield.  A modern infantry squad usually roars into battle in an armored carrier with enough firepower to pound to scrap a WW2 rifle company without breaking a sweat and with the speed to leave your typical WW2 halftrack in the dust.  That means, unopposed, the enemy can be nearly anywhere on the typical scenario map in a few minutes, complicating tactics and defenses.  Guderian would have given up a Panzer regiment for the capabilities and lethality of a single modern US Abrams tank company if it was available in WW2.
 
In general, try not be to seen.  To be spotted and engaged first by the enemy means most likely the start of a bad day and the loss of an asset, be it either infantry or armored vehicles.  Try to spot and engage first is the rule of the day.
 
Hope this helps give you a feeling for the differences between WW2 and modern warfare.

Yes, and his name is m0317624. Jeez, Steam. Hire someone who can pick better forum names. ;-)
 
 
Well, even if he's not a Steam employee, it's interesting to watch him try to "educate" Steve.

The visualization below describes the morale transitions as I understand them.  This isn't official, but just from observations/testing.

The Red states correspond to the red borders in the UI.  They are temporary but prevent any orders when present.   
The Yellow states correspond to the yellow borders in the UI. 

 
So the proposition is that once you're Shaken, you'll only ever be Shaken or Rattled.  Once you're Broken, you'll only ever be Panicked or Broken.