c3k

The problem with any discussion of OBs or TO&E's for any scenario, especially for the WW2 era, is that there is seldom any clarity as to what exactly was present at any particular location at any particular time.  On the Eastern Front in particular, even identifying the correct participants down to the battalion level is typically an impossible task because the documentation simply doesn't exist.  Even in France or Italy where Western Allied and German records are typically much better there are still a lot of unknowns.  The Germans had a lot of ad hoc units where it can be virtually impossible to know what equipment was present or not present and even standardized TO&Es are not so standard once you have first hand accounts or unit specific equipment descriptions available.  I seem to recall that the Hermann Goering Division had one support unit in Italy that was supposed to be an engineer battalion, but only one company was actual engineers.  The other two companies were self propelled artillery and a recon company or something - I don't remember the specifics off hand.  Suffice to say that if you were using a standard TO&E for that unit for a scenario you would be inaccurate in your depiction of the forces involved.  Aside from unit strengths in quiet sectors just before a major attack, virtually no unit on the Eastern Front was ever at full strength with most German and Soviet units being somewhere around 50 percent strength on the high end.  Strength returns for most German battalions were typically much lower than 50 percent, but if a designer chops 50 percent strength off their battalion they are more likely than not to be in the ball park of what might have been present if the exact figure is not known.
I seem to recall Jason complaining about King Tigers, Panthers, and other German tanks being too common in scenarios and I think it can serve as a good example of the problem with that kind of argument.  If I have a book about the 505th Tiger battalion and from that book I manage to find enough material to create four scenarios all with Tigers in them, well then those scenarios are historically accurate.  At least as accurate as I can make them given the reference material that I have available to me.  Saying that out of twenty scenarios there are four scenarios with Tigers in them and that's inaccurate is a faulty argument on its face.  If I recreated four scenarios with Tigers in them and I used reference material from four actual battles that took place that had Tigers in them, the fact that there are four scenarios with Tigers in them doesn't make those scenarios inaccurate.  That's just a ridiculous position to take.
There are so many battles in WW2 that took place and accurate information down to the battalion level that includes specific equipment strength figures is so hard to come by, it is without a doubt more difficult to prove that something is inaccurate since any battle that any designer chooses to create could theoretically have taken place on the battlefield at some point in time during WW2.  With regards to the Red Thunder campaign I think a fair question to ask would be whether anyone can prove that the situation depicted in the first scenario never took place.  There are literally thousands of miles of frontlines to peruse and for someone to sit there and say with any level of confidence that the situation in the scenario is absolutely a false depiction of events is going way out on a limb no matter what 'facts' they are basing their objections upon.

I've played the first scenario of Hammer's Flank 3 or 4 times. Never to a finish. (The first time, I found out that a critical FO team was -behind- me (where the camera is at start), and I never noticed it until too late. The benefit of the pre-planned arty was lost... That led to a retry after having played for ~30 turns.) I'm not sure how far along my furthest progression achieved. Pretty far...but not to the end.
It is, simply, not my cup of tea. Also, it could be that my abilities fall short. (As well, I my time is stretched in MANY directions and once I put down a campaign, I hesitate to pick it up again due to the loss of currency regarding what has occurred. In short, I forget about "that" machinegun nest or whatnot and too many men die...needlessly.)
I understand the criticism of the first battle. Having not played beyond that, I will not offer an opinion on anything past what I have experienced. The first battle is hard. I am not "vested" in a campaign until past the first few battles. Having hit my head against the brick wall which is Hammer's Flank, I did not feel vested, so did not pursue a finish to it.
This forum has garnered a reputation in some corners of being unwelcoming to newcomers...especially those with criticisms. 
No, Hammer's Flank is not easy. No, it should not be the first battle/campaign you attempt. Yes, it does present a HISTORICAL challenge to the Soviet side. Yes, many will become casualties. 
The big picture? Criticism can lead to improvement. Couching it so as not to be insulting is as important as being open to hear it...even from new forum members.
But then, I've just had several good pilsners. Shrug.
 

I've played the first scenario of Hammer's Flank 3 or 4 times. Never to a finish. (The first time, I found out that a critical FO team was -behind- me (where the camera is at start), and I never noticed it until too late. The benefit of the pre-planned arty was lost... That led to a retry after having played for ~30 turns.) I'm not sure how far along my furthest progression achieved. Pretty far...but not to the end.
It is, simply, not my cup of tea. Also, it could be that my abilities fall short. (As well, I my time is stretched in MANY directions and once I put down a campaign, I hesitate to pick it up again due to the loss of currency regarding what has occurred. In short, I forget about "that" machinegun nest or whatnot and too many men die...needlessly.)
I understand the criticism of the first battle. Having not played beyond that, I will not offer an opinion on anything past what I have experienced. The first battle is hard. I am not "vested" in a campaign until past the first few battles. Having hit my head against the brick wall which is Hammer's Flank, I did not feel vested, so did not pursue a finish to it.
This forum has garnered a reputation in some corners of being unwelcoming to newcomers...especially those with criticisms. 
No, Hammer's Flank is not easy. No, it should not be the first battle/campaign you attempt. Yes, it does present a HISTORICAL challenge to the Soviet side. Yes, many will become casualties. 
The big picture? Criticism can lead to improvement. Couching it so as not to be insulting is as important as being open to hear it...even from new forum members.
But then, I've just had several good pilsners. Shrug.
 

I wanted to...but the first three disappeared too quickly.

I actually used the Campaign Decompile tool and modified the opening mission of Hammer's Flank. It was some months ago that I did this and I did a playthrough but didn't store it. I'll be doing one again as an AAR sometime to illustrate how much better that mission can be with some simple fixes in player support and mission timing. I didn't even, but should, fix the objective scoring too. 
I'm also a long time customer of Battlefront and war games and a post count is not a good measure for determining the value of a community member. So it's difficult to see exactly how you can frame a comment like that a "right" way at all. It's a forum and feedback is what it's for. My experience with these forums is that they frequently end up as echo chambers for a select minority of pig headed bullies who want to lobby the developers to make products for them that confirm their narrow ideas. I am eager to be proven wrong. 
Gate keeping is a good way to prove me right. The values you have named are the hallmarks of an honest community, not a toxic one. Which will the CM forums be I wonder? 
Many are not. Their work will speak for itself more frequently than I should the scenarios "speak" in ways that imply anything but knowledge. 
Quite, but the German campaign in that game was much more consistent in its design and played better. I have never felt it required editing of any kind. Was it designed by the same team? 
I'm working on Fortress Grosshau in Final Blitz right now. Kari Salo's scenarios don't usually need editing though, often being really fun and playable right off. I'm rebalancing that scenario mostly for fun and not really function anyway so next time i'm in the mood to play Red Thunder and see what I changed i'll make an AAR or something. It'll happen sometime, I don't know when but since i'm not looking to prove some kind of silly grognard cred to the community and don't much care what they think of me I don't know when that will be. 
Where? What part of the line? When? If you're pursuing a background in law of some kind I suggest you save the money and drop out of school. It isn't working. What i'm talking about is when I try to play a scenario only to find that the exits from all of my deploy points are covered by planned fires and that I cannot maneuver around  because of impassable terrain like thick forests or creeks. 
Take objective B, the back of a 2000 meter long map with 3 companies of rifle infantry, their under supplied mortars which will arrive late, and 4 Shermans/SU-76s. If it's supposed to be believable that recce missed the number of Germans comprising the defense or the heavy guns they've got sighted over meticulously thought out lines of sight, or the large craters that were left by what was clearly Corp guns trying to plink the recce, it's not. When I hit "cease fire - total defeat" because all 4 of my tanks were knocked out by bogging, mines, the Pak40s and I took over 100 casualties and see that not even 500m behind my deploy is an entrenched, reinforced company of infantry supported by what must be their *entire* Regiment's mortars (fully supplied!!!!), mines, bad weather, TRPs, and a whole battery of Pak40s I think we have a problem here. The mission briefing might make some excuses like  "you don't have any artillery because it was busy suppressing the enemy's guns or firing all day" but it sure doesn't look like that, if the scenario designer even bothered to explain why an asset you could normally expect per those lovely ToEs he cites isn't here today because hell with it. That's what i'm talking about. 

Guns not just moved behind, but usually supported infantry attack by direct lay fire. First scheme that I found in pamyat-naroda.ru:

"Scheme of battle positions for direct lay fire".  23.10.1942. 268 rifle regiment. Side of the square is 1 km. As you see, distance to German positions is 400-700m. It wouldn't be possible, if German mgs would be effective against guns at 500m, right?
Right! It seems that flak gunner is coded to ignore supression when he is seeing target. Shield is 9mm, sloped at 30 degrees to vertical. Thicker, than M-42's, but not too much...

Probably they were. I was very lucky and found regimental journal for this days! (Regimental documents are rare, unlike divisional)

"Batteries of ИПП (AT regiment) and ПА (regimental artillery) fired by direct lay at targets №35, 37, 32, 39, 40 and 101. Results: target 37 is destroyed, targets 35, 38, 39 49 and 101 are damaged. Ammo used - 120, mortar ammo - 134. Snipers destroyed 16 Germans."

"Regiment made engineer work entrenching forward line. Enemy shelled forward line of defense. Ammo used - 80. Losses: wounded - 1."
It was usual positional war, not assault... Snipers overclaimed results, of course.
Correct! But how much close is too close?

I'm not sure I get the argument here.
 
In the extract from Panzer Tactics, it suggests that 500m you won't KO the AT gun with MG fire so best to engage it with the main gun = better chance of KOing the AT gun. Yes?
Your test proves that point because at best all you can hope to do is suppress the AT crew - which again given the size of the gun shield appears correct as at best only two people are right behind the shield - everyone else is either side with less protection (assuming the gun is not dug in).
So MG fire above 500 m will, at best, suppress an AT gun (a suppressed AT gun is still potentially a threat - as I've found it to my cost in-game - they can quickly recover if the fire slackens and re-engage). So if 500m plus and if you want to KO an AT gun, then engage with the main gun firing HE.
Perhaps I'm missing the point you are trying to make?

WeGo is great. I sit there, gnashing my teeth, as that ONE idiot does NOT follow the rest of his squad. Instead of going THROUGH the breach, he goes AROUND. ARRRrrrgggghhh! And I am powerless to do anything but watch...and then sit amazed as his squad gets pinned and it is he who saves them by opening up on the enemy from the flank.
In RTS I would've stopped the action and adjusted the squad's orders. Or, I would have never seen it at all.
 

WeGo is great. I sit there, gnashing my teeth, as that ONE idiot does NOT follow the rest of his squad. Instead of going THROUGH the breach, he goes AROUND. ARRRrrrgggghhh! And I am powerless to do anything but watch...and then sit amazed as his squad gets pinned and it is he who saves them by opening up on the enemy from the flank.
In RTS I would've stopped the action and adjusted the squad's orders. Or, I would have never seen it at all.
 

Great advice! And then you can decide which Theatre of War you prefer before a possible purchase. And remember the big +1 that the CM series has over it's competition is it's WeGo mode.
Once you get used WeGO mode, you'll never look back to the RTS mode. Sometimes I can spend 30 minutes watching the same juicy 1 minute action turn  from different perspectives!

^^^This.
And sometimes something truly magical happens in the field and I need to see it ten times to actually believe it. 

The cool thing about this game is how so much of the mechanics are hidden.
The frustrating thing about this game is how so much of the mechanics are hidden.
 
The only way to tell would be to run 100 to 1,000 tests of a three-walled structure (set it up like that in the editor) vs. the same target and shooter with a structure with the wall demolished.
After 1,000 iterations of each (remember, same-same for all tests: shooters and targets), you'll have an idea.
Let us know.

If what I read earlier in one of these threads - more frequent updates with less in each - then I will be happier.  As it is I've stopped playing CM games till the fix for running away from a perfectly good defensive position to stand in the open a few feet away issue is fixed.  I didn't want to revert back a release since that is usually a pain to keep straight.  Any other developer taking a year and  half to fix that would go on my never buy from again but BF has enough goodwill stored up that I'm still buying the next game ASAP.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved.
An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task.
  The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same.
  Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc.
  I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

As one who is not currently playing CM (all games still on my machines), I still stop by to see what's happening, so it has been very gratifying to see the information about upcoming releases. "When it's done" has always worked for me as a release date but that doesn't offset my desire for information about the development of releases. So thanks to Steve for the recent information and thanks to all the developers and the betas for this truly remarkable family of games. Now, about CM3...

Rommel, you magnificent bastard, I read your book! 
As for a RED force counter to BLUE open country mech, all I can think of is some of the 1941 Ariete tactics during CRUSADER, where their best offence was a good defence (i.e. a feint), and their short guns bushwhacked the advancing British tanks on reverse slopes and wadis.
Hezbollah provides the only successful  modern example of course, but they had the singular advantage of defence in depth, in a long-prepared zone. Still, they had some interesting tactical ideas.
2006 Lebanon war
Hezbollah deployed their tank-killer teams in a thin but effective defensive scheme, protecting the villages where the organization’s Shiite members reside; villages where their short range rockets were positioned and where command infrastructure and logistics support was set up. An estimated 500 to 600 members of their roughly 4,000-strong Hezbollah fighting strength in South Lebanon were divided into tank-killer teams of 5 or 6, each armed with 5-8 anti-tank missiles, with further supplies stored in small fortified well camouflaged bunkers and fortified basements, built to withstand Israeli air attacks.
Due to mountainous area, engagements were encountered at ranges below 3000 meters. Hezbollah tank-killer teams would lay in wait in camouflaged bunkers or houses, having planted large IEDs on known approach routes. Once an Israeli tank would detonate one of these, Hezbollah would start lobbing mortar shells onto the scene to prevent rescue teams rushing forward, also firing at outflanking Merkava tanks by targeting the more vulnerable rear zone with RPGs.
In general, Hezbollah demonstrated rather slow regrouping and response rate, since their mobility and command links were severely restricted by the IDF dominating the open areas. However, even this slow pace was fast enough to match the slow and indecisive movements of the Israelis forces.
... Benefiting from its superior night combat capability, the IDF conducted most movements at night, minimizing exposure of forces during day time.... 
Realizing the capabilities of the Merkava 4 tank, Hezbollah... engaged these tanks exclusively with the heavier, more capable missiles such as 9M133 AT-14 Kornet, 9M131 Metis M and RPG-29.... the TOW as well as non tandem RPGs, were considered obsolete against tanks, but proved quite lethal against troops seeking cover in buildings.
Overall, almost 90% of the tanks hit were by tandem warheads. 
The IDF employed several hundred tanks.... about ten percent were hit by various threats. Less than half of the hits penetrated.... 
Hezbollah aimed their missiles to the sides, and rear, when possible.... An armored brigade, which bore the brunt of battle.. hundreds of antitank missiles were fired... only 18 tanks were seriously damaged. Of those, missiles actually penetrated only five or six vehicles and according to statistics, only two tanks were totally destroyed, however, both by super-heavy IED charges.

Here is part ten.
I wish I could stay and chat, but I'm pretty much posting this before bedtime.
 
Welcome back. Take your time. I certainly don't have any.

It occurs to me I had forgotten to post part nine to the forum followers.
Here it is:
 
I have part ten recorded, and it will be posted after editing.
Part eleven, coming sometime in the next couple weeks, will feature lots of gunfire and explosions, for those of you who only want to see such things. You know who you are...  
I think, at this point, a conversation about the psychology of playing Combat Mission against another human opponent might be called for, but I have naught for time right now.

Well, this certainly isn't Sunday, nor is it two weeks ago.
My apologies.
 
The fighting around Casa d'Antonio will go on for quite some time yet, the battle has settled down into a skirmishing action.

The next part, taking us up to turn 80.

Give me a year or so to recover from this one Ian and then we will cross swords again.   
A word on this battle... I never felt comfortable, and I think I realized quite quickly that I brought the wrong force to this fight... I have already said but I should have been armor heavy, I mean all armor with maybe a platoon of infantry as scouts.  This map is so open and the enemy start up zone was so close to my end of the map (something that I failed to notice when we were trying to decide on which map to play on) that I never really had a chance... and no, I never spotted your infantry that had a clear view on my assembly area... I never even considered clearing the ridge, I didn't have enough combat power to devote to that anyway and it was a substantial amount of ground as well.
When fighting a superior force (superior in this case means my units were outclassed in quality and we were about equal in force size, bad combination), led by a talented commander, in terrain that suits them, there is no shame in admitting that there would be nothing to gain by continuing to push... so cut and run, then come back perhaps a little wiser for the next one.
Great job Ian, there were no flaws in your planning or in your game-play.  Next time, when that time comes, perhaps we will do a Blue v Blue or Red v Red scenario.  Those are always interesting.
Bil

Ian,
Congrats! It was thoroughly enjoyable watching how this developed from both sides. Your planning provided the foundation for your victory. By correctly weighing the options you had available, and allocating the correct forces to them, you totally dominated the battlefield.
Well done!

The Coy XO definitely takes over if the Coy Commander goes down.
A Bttn XO does not appear take over if the Bttn Commander goes down.
It would seem as if from @Bulletpoint's post that the Asst Plt Ldr behaves more like a Bttn XO than a Coy XO.
I have no idea or explanation as why it is like this.
 
As for a leader attributes passing down to his subordinate units - this categorically does not happen. I explain this in my post The Relationship between Soft Factors, Morale & Fatigue
To conceptualise this, imagine the leadership modifier is exactly the same as the fitness modifier with respect to who it affects.
An unfit Platoon HQ that gets out of breath walking up a hill does not mean that all of the squads under their command get out of breath walking up the hill. 
The same for Leadership. A Plt Leader who has a -2 Leadership modifier only applies that modifier to the rest of the Platoon HQ. The squads are dependent on the leadership modifier of their individual Squad Leaders (or team leaders when split).
I think this gets confusing for people because of 2 reasons.
1. The Leadership modifier is the only soft factor that can dynamically change as a result of casualties.
2. It is the only one of the factors that is applied to individuals as opposed to the team as a whole. Experience, Fitness and Motivation remain the same for a unit throughout the game irrespective of which individual within the team becomes a casualty.
What I mean here is that a unit with +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and is Fit at the start of the game will still have +2 Motivation, Veteran Experience and be Fit at the end, even if all but one member is killed and the unit is Rattled and Exhausted.  Leadership, however, will change depending on which individual becomes the casualty. If for example the sole survivor of a squad is Sgt Cane who had a +2 Leadership modifier at the beginning, the Squad will still have the +2 Leadership modifier. However if the sole survivor is Private Pants then the Leadership modifier is likely to have changed to -1 or -2. The the other soft factors will remain the same as they were at the beginning because they apply to the unit as a collective.
 

Thanks @Josey Wales.  This is one of your best explanations yet.  Each time you are asked to explain it I think you get a little better .  +1