General Jack Ripper

Reading John's AAR's from way back in the day of the ROW Tournaments was one reason I bought Combat Mission in the first place.
I feel I owe it to the guy to get him back into the PBEM scene, he's been out for a long time.

Note also that the engine work necessary for the new release (Bulge) would seem to be far smaller in scope than the other, graphical and model capability work that needs to be done. Thus work on the next version of the engine (which will roll out to all the old game families BN-and-onwards) will be able to start sooner.
 
You're also forgetting that every new family except BS has come associated with significant changes to the engine (and even BS had some new stuff needed for the setting): BN had all the things for temperate fighting; FI had v2 with interface and graphics updates; RT had v3 with all sorts of new goodies that are in place for all the other families now. Just because your pet peeves haven't been addressed doesn't mean the engine hasn't been being worked on and all those changes ported into old titles. A new release provides the influx of funds that BFC needs to improve its engine, and their remarkable policy of backporting improvements to games which, for any other software house, would have been abandonware years ago means you can have those upgrades for the measly price of ten bucks.
 
We don't know what, if any, family will be released along with v4; perhaps it'll be a standalone upgrade available to all existing families, though I doubt it, even if the $50 for everyone to upgrade all the families is starting to be comparable to the income from selling a new family base product.
 
Be aware that generating new scenarios, 3-D models and TO&E is, without denigrating the work done by those fine folk who toil on those aspects, technically trivial compared to improving things like TacAI pathing, internal damage models and making spotting conform to all your expectations, and changing the engine is work which can be done by only two people in the entire world. The various elements are also, to some degree, independent of each other. Work can go on in parallel, and potentially be released separately. See the new Battle Pack, which required little or no input from Charles and PhilC.
 
Like you, I haven't even nearly completed all the FI and BN content that I have. Which is why I haven't put buying RT or BS or even the upgrade to v3 for FI high enough on my spending priorities yet to get ahold of them. But I have got all the engine improvements made available by the release of RT in my BN. The great thing about the BFC pricing model is you don't have to buy anything until you want to, and you'll still get the benefits of any work done in the future.
 
TLDR: you're working from a mistaken viewpoint. BFC do maintain older titles, so this whole thread starts with a false premise based on misinformation.

Well I could take a stab at it. I'm usually not so organized as to write anything down.
 
In this battle, I split my squads into the basic teams using the [split Squad] command. Each squad split into two teams, and what I ended up with was half of my teams with LMG's and K98's, the other half with MP40's, StG's, G43's, and a few K98's to fill the gaps. I figured I would use the normal four F's [Find, Fix, Flank, Finish] in combination with the pairs of teams. The LMG's would fix the enemy with fire, while the light weapons would maneuver to the flank and finish the enemy with small arms and grenades.
 
That was my plan going in, but the difficult terrain prevented me from doing it properly. The vast majority of cases saw only one team being able to see and shoot at the opposing enemy team. With the second team being unable to maneuver, or unable to close with the enemy to use grenades and use their small arms.
 
The terrain initially appeared to be rather smooth, but very small terrain undulations (maybe 1 meter at a time) made for a series of very small reverse slopes, and natural fighting positions to exploit. Movement was best done no more than three action spots at a time, with careful attention paid to LOS from each spot in the planned movement. Often troops in one AS could see and shoot at enemy troops, while those in the adjacent AS could neither see nor fire. There were several times where my planned movement was rendered useless when designated fire teams could not fire and suppress enemy teams to allow for further movement.
 
After some time I got into the practice of first finding a final AS where the team would be able to fire into the enemy AS, then plotting a [Quick] to the AS short of the intended destination. The remaining AS was crossed using the [slow] command. This allowed a team to move close to their destination quickly, then arrive at the spot crawling, and using the natural cover as best they could. I also plotted an [Area Fire] order into the suspected enemy position at the last waypoint, so the team would open fire after crawling into their position.
 
20-30 seconds after the first team moved, any adjacent team not currently under fire, would also move to a different AS using the same method. The destination would have LOS into the suspected enemy position as well, preferably from a different angle. The exception was they did not have an [Area Fire] order plotted on their last waypoint.
 
The intended result of this maneuver is to take the enemy team under LMG fire until they are suppressed enough they abandon their position. The second team is then free to fire upon the enemy when they move. The LOS is usually so short the enemy is only visible for a few seconds, but it is usually enough to cause a few casualties. Once the enemy team abandons their position, you are free to repeat the maneuver as necessary.
 
The most important factor is to allow your [Area Fire] time to do it's work, it might take several turns of sustained fire to force the enemy from their position. If all else fails, you can repeat the first move with the second team to arrive within hand grenade range. Once the assault team has crawled into position, the very short [Target] order forces them to throw their grenades, rapidly killing or forcing the enemy to abandon their position.
 
Keep in mind this maneuver is the potential "best-case" scenario, and all maneuvers are subject to interruption or modification in the face of enemy action.
 
In a nutshell, it's basically bounding overwatch with suppressing fire, confined to a very small space usually within five AS of the enemy. One very important thing to remember, always try to finish every move with a [slow] command, so your troops won't be kneeling or standing. In dense woods, the engagement ranges are so short, that any stance aside from the prone position is a death sentence. I took many casualties trying to move quickly, and having my men arrive in range of the enemy while standing or kneeling.
 
I just thought of a simple maxim:
"When in the forest, fight on your stomach."
 
I hope that helps, thanks for reading.
 
EDIT: If you'd like, I could make a short video demonstration, if the explanation requires elaboration.

You would be dead wrong, stop wasting our time with asinine comments.

I like the technique! If the game had lasted a little longer, you know that the secondary explosions from the Shermans would've knocked out that Panther. It shows a highly developed tactical acumen to see that possibility and maneuver the Shermans close enough so it can work. A lot of folks would've tried to do that, but then ruined it by allowing their Shermans to actually SHOOT at the Panther. I laugh at their newbness.
 
DJ gets the award for low-level use of high-level tactical strategery.
 
Oh, and it's properly spelled "narwhalegangwaffe".  

So you already knew the results we are seeing have little or nothing to do with shatter gap? Is that why you were going on about how shatter gap was too "extreme" in the game? Because that is what my tests revealed and I am pretty sure you had no idea.
 
 
 
Which is it? Make up your mind!

 
There are actually three types of "penetrations" defined in your link:
 
PTP = Projectile passes through plate.
CP = Complete Penetration – projectile failed to pass through plate, but light visible through hole or crack in plate.
PP = Partial Penetration – failure to make crack or hole in plate through which light3 is visible.
Army definition CM equivalent PTP Penetration CP Partial Penetration PP Spalling But I'll tell you what, because I don't like seeing good data go to waste I will report my tests to BFC and ask if everything looks kosher. I can justify that on the lack of shatter gap alone. There is also a small but not insignificant difference between the observed penetration rate and the expected rate for that penetration/resistance ratio as defined in WW2 Ballistics.
 

^ That one made me cry. Still does actually.

When it is possible to split a squad into three teams my SOP is the following in most cases:  
 
First I split off an assault team which will take most of the grenades (A-Team)  Then I split off an anti-tank team (C-Team).  This leaves the base team (B-Team) with the LMGs.  I think this type and order of split is the most useful in most situations.  If you split off the anti tank team first they will take most of the grenades.  I want my assault team to have most of the grenades since they are going to close and hose if/when necessary.  Also if the AT team is a separate two man team they can be given an armor cover arc and be better positioned/used for their anti-tank role.  If the AT team remains part of a bigger team they will likely be involved in infantry fire fights and may become casualties.  Then you get involved in attempting to buddy aid the AT weapon and rockets and probably around that time an OpFor tank comes rumbling up the road........
 
So at least in theory B-Team provides the base of fire, A-Team maneuvers (close & hose) & C-Team deals with any armor that might show up.              

If you want LOS from the standing position, you have to stand up. Try lying down in a field of tall grass and see how far you can see, even if you raise your head a bit. LOS doesn't work that way, and there's no reason for it to be changed just to be more "gamey". Your statement is a matter of personal opinion, not a fault with the game design.
I personally advocated for an increased spotting ability while hiding many years ago, but was simply told, 'that's how it works'. Unlike you, I said 'okay', and left it at that.
The problem with most of your complaints is that they have already been done to death years ago, and we're tired of rehashing the same tired old topics.
 
 
Then don't advance down the map edges. Ever since the days of Shock Force, the A.I. has relied on the player to click the cease fire button when they feel the battle is over. There is a point where it auto-surrenders, but it's not perfect. Secure all of the stated objectives to your satisfaction, then hit cease fire. If you make every single scenario into a bitter fight to the finish, then you will run into groups of broken soldiers hiding along the map edge.
This is not an issue with the game engine, it is an issue with how you play the game. Stop trying to murderize the A.I. in every fight, and you'll see your enjoyment of the game go up by a huge amount.
 
Now, I would like to make an on topic point. I would like to echo the request for information as to the proposed Shock Force game engine upgrade. Is this on the back burner for the immediate future, or will work on it be done in parallel with other projects?

If you want LOS from the standing position, you have to stand up. Try lying down in a field of tall grass and see how far you can see, even if you raise your head a bit. LOS doesn't work that way, and there's no reason for it to be changed just to be more "gamey". Your statement is a matter of personal opinion, not a fault with the game design.
I personally advocated for an increased spotting ability while hiding many years ago, but was simply told, 'that's how it works'. Unlike you, I said 'okay', and left it at that.
The problem with most of your complaints is that they have already been done to death years ago, and we're tired of rehashing the same tired old topics.
 
 
Then don't advance down the map edges. Ever since the days of Shock Force, the A.I. has relied on the player to click the cease fire button when they feel the battle is over. There is a point where it auto-surrenders, but it's not perfect. Secure all of the stated objectives to your satisfaction, then hit cease fire. If you make every single scenario into a bitter fight to the finish, then you will run into groups of broken soldiers hiding along the map edge.
This is not an issue with the game engine, it is an issue with how you play the game. Stop trying to murderize the A.I. in every fight, and you'll see your enjoyment of the game go up by a huge amount.
 
Now, I would like to make an on topic point. I would like to echo the request for information as to the proposed Shock Force game engine upgrade. Is this on the back burner for the immediate future, or will work on it be done in parallel with other projects?

When I select my scout unit off of my squad, it would be a nice option for that scout unit to take the binoculars with them or leave them behind,currently the scouts never get  binoculars.Being their job is to go "scout" you would think the  binoculars would default to them.Just another interesting decision to make.

SLIM, I will be posting a workbook template, one for the US and one for the Germans... after that it'll be a simple cut and paste operation to build it to whatever size and configuration you like... stay tuned.

You're welcome! I'm glad that people are still finding and enjoying the campaign.

-FMB

I absolutely did not see this one coming. Saudi Arabia, faced with the near collapse of neighbor Yemen, with whom it shares a long border, has today, March 25, 2015, gone to war, as part of a 10-nation coalition, to throw out the Shiite Houthi insurgents. Who also have aircraft and are using them. Seems to me this multinational campaign, in which the US has no forces, offers amazing opportunities to take CMSF scenario design into a brand new direction. The Saudi's armor, part of the Saudi Royal Army, is mainly an Abrams version built specially for them and Bradleys, but uses a diverse range of weaponry after that. SA also has Apaches. SA rundown here. Yemen has a rather shopworn ex-Russian T-54/T-55 force and some T-62s, BMPs 1 and 2, plus BTR-60s and M113s. Did I mention the Yemeni Army is fighting on both sides?! As for the Houthis, they're doubtless mostly UNCON armed with low end weapons, plus whatever they've seized since. Also AQAP is opposed to the Houthis. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 

I would Say that 90% of CMBS comes from SF and 90% of all other WW2 titles comes from CMBN... It's called recycling old stuff for a new full price game.

I agree. The performance and texture rendering in the game have come a long way since the earliest days of Shock Force. Battlefront well understands their customers don't all own thousand dollar hypermachines, and they've made it a stated goal to steadily improve performance for older computers.
Even if they insisted the "blue bar" idea was delusional, they still put it back in to appease the masses. Try getting that sort of service from a AAA developer!
 
 
My eyes almost bugged out of my head at that one.

Reading John's AAR's from way back in the day of the ROW Tournaments was one reason I bought Combat Mission in the first place.
I feel I owe it to the guy to get him back into the PBEM scene, he's been out for a long time.

To get a loan with this bank first you have to go through the 9 Circles of Loan Application with Loan Manager Dante Alighieri. Also a surefire sign that if you miss a loan payment there will be the devil to pay. And their ATM fees must be hell.

Maybe it's just flavour text, with no real difference. Would be easy to program in to give people the impression that amazing simulation is going on under the hood.

Nope. Games where the Russians have an Armata on the battlefield will automatically be decided in favor of the Russians, no exceptions. And because it would be waste of time to actually play such a game, Battlefront decided to remove all gameplay content in the upcoming CMBS module. Yeah, it' s true, after installing the new module, you will only be able to start the game to the main menu, and if you click on any of the menus items (including options and exit), you will immedeatly be shown a screen that says "Russian Total Victory".
 
No, i am just kidding. The truth is that your computer will explode and kill you after installing the CMBS module containing the Armata. IIRC Steve said it was too difficult to get the CMx2 engine to simulate the awesomeness of the Armata, so they will simply use CDs made of RDX instead of plastic for the Armata module.
 
Haha, no, i am still just kidding. Here are some real Armata facts:
 
What happens if an Armata drives through a river? The river becomes Armata!
There is no such thing as global warming, just the exhaust gases of the Armatas engine.
Why are there no Armata LEGOs? Because no one can take an Armata apart!

Additional digging shows G. Biryukov was a General Major (1 Star, what we'd call a Brigadier General) and G. Melnikov a Colonel and Candidate in Military Science, which is equivalent to a western Ph.D. Also, "Antitank Warfare" was apparently published directly in English, as well as the usual Russian, by Progress Publishers, Moscow. 
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

Jim Warford, as some of you may know, is the author of a bunch of articles in ARMOR magazine on the above topic. He is a BTDT type (TCed everything from M60A1 (passive RISE) through 105 mm gunned M1 Abrams) who is also a deep student of Soviet/Russian tanks. This interview with him is quite revealing and also serves to reinforce the same point I've long been hammering away at: the gross inadequacy of the 105 mm gun vs the OPFOR tanks of the period before M1s with 120 mm guns arrived on the scene. The notional CM Fulda Gap, which many would love to see, were it done correctly, would be a very tough fight against the OPFOR of the period, an OPFOR which had better gun power on one end and better protection on the other--in addition to numerical superiority! 
 
What he has to say about the intel available to him as a tanker is downright scary. I first came across his work in ARMOR in a seminal piece he wrote on the Soviet Premium Tank, page 23 et seq., which evidently was based on the research which went into his Master's thesis: The Threat of the Soviet Premium Tank. Not everyone agrees with his concept, as seen here in a very hot and heavy exchange between Jim Warford and an anonymous poster, BlacktailFA. That is but one of several blasts aimed his way on that same page.  I read pieces of some of them, and while they're strident in the extreme, there do seem to be some good points raised--while simultaneously revealing truly dazzling levels of subject ignorance. In claiming there was no evidence the Russians were worried about NATO ATGMs, BlacktailFA clearly shows he has never heard  of Candidate of Military Science Col. A. Tonkikh's "Overcoming Antitank Defense," published in 1968, which I had in UNCLASSIFIED machine translated form circa 1980, or the monograph "Antitank Defense," by Biryukov and Menikov, published in 1972 (example shown was university republished in 2002), and for which I had a full-blown English translation in 1984, and that was who nows how old, since it was something I inherited from a deceased colleague. Both unmistakably show the Russians were aware of the ATGM threat, with examples of western ATGMs going back as far as the SS-10.
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler
 
P.S.
 
The referenced Jim Warford interview has a most interesting sidebar containing several interviews with another CMer: Harry Yeide. He is a self-confessed CM addict!

Well I could take a stab at it. I'm usually not so organized as to write anything down.
 
In this battle, I split my squads into the basic teams using the [split Squad] command. Each squad split into two teams, and what I ended up with was half of my teams with LMG's and K98's, the other half with MP40's, StG's, G43's, and a few K98's to fill the gaps. I figured I would use the normal four F's [Find, Fix, Flank, Finish] in combination with the pairs of teams. The LMG's would fix the enemy with fire, while the light weapons would maneuver to the flank and finish the enemy with small arms and grenades.
 
That was my plan going in, but the difficult terrain prevented me from doing it properly. The vast majority of cases saw only one team being able to see and shoot at the opposing enemy team. With the second team being unable to maneuver, or unable to close with the enemy to use grenades and use their small arms.
 
The terrain initially appeared to be rather smooth, but very small terrain undulations (maybe 1 meter at a time) made for a series of very small reverse slopes, and natural fighting positions to exploit. Movement was best done no more than three action spots at a time, with careful attention paid to LOS from each spot in the planned movement. Often troops in one AS could see and shoot at enemy troops, while those in the adjacent AS could neither see nor fire. There were several times where my planned movement was rendered useless when designated fire teams could not fire and suppress enemy teams to allow for further movement.
 
After some time I got into the practice of first finding a final AS where the team would be able to fire into the enemy AS, then plotting a [Quick] to the AS short of the intended destination. The remaining AS was crossed using the [slow] command. This allowed a team to move close to their destination quickly, then arrive at the spot crawling, and using the natural cover as best they could. I also plotted an [Area Fire] order into the suspected enemy position at the last waypoint, so the team would open fire after crawling into their position.
 
20-30 seconds after the first team moved, any adjacent team not currently under fire, would also move to a different AS using the same method. The destination would have LOS into the suspected enemy position as well, preferably from a different angle. The exception was they did not have an [Area Fire] order plotted on their last waypoint.
 
The intended result of this maneuver is to take the enemy team under LMG fire until they are suppressed enough they abandon their position. The second team is then free to fire upon the enemy when they move. The LOS is usually so short the enemy is only visible for a few seconds, but it is usually enough to cause a few casualties. Once the enemy team abandons their position, you are free to repeat the maneuver as necessary.
 
The most important factor is to allow your [Area Fire] time to do it's work, it might take several turns of sustained fire to force the enemy from their position. If all else fails, you can repeat the first move with the second team to arrive within hand grenade range. Once the assault team has crawled into position, the very short [Target] order forces them to throw their grenades, rapidly killing or forcing the enemy to abandon their position.
 
Keep in mind this maneuver is the potential "best-case" scenario, and all maneuvers are subject to interruption or modification in the face of enemy action.
 
In a nutshell, it's basically bounding overwatch with suppressing fire, confined to a very small space usually within five AS of the enemy. One very important thing to remember, always try to finish every move with a [slow] command, so your troops won't be kneeling or standing. In dense woods, the engagement ranges are so short, that any stance aside from the prone position is a death sentence. I took many casualties trying to move quickly, and having my men arrive in range of the enemy while standing or kneeling.
 
I just thought of a simple maxim:
"When in the forest, fight on your stomach."
 
I hope that helps, thanks for reading.
 
EDIT: If you'd like, I could make a short video demonstration, if the explanation requires elaboration.

That's a very Grognard question, I'm sure someone will be along to answer it soon.
 
We have many Grogs here.
 
They're everywhere!

That's a very Grognard question, I'm sure someone will be along to answer it soon.
 
We have many Grogs here.
 
They're everywhere!