DavidFields

BTW: The first two things I do is 1. Click the highest level HQ and give all units a short cover arc. 2. Also put everyone on hide--unhiding only selected elements. That said, I have frequently advocated for micro, sub-platoon, scenarios.

I think it has been much improved. And, with the improvements in MG fire, the balance now seems "WW2" in qualitative character. The artillery/mortar strikes seem much more inexact (good). The inexactness seems even higher when calling in bigger assets. I have also learned to "hide" everything as a default mode--only letting something I want to spot actually spot. Motionless squads kneeling seemed to me very vulnerable to random HE. My sense is that "terrain saves" have been dialed up a bit. I could be wrong, but it would make sense if it was, reflecting microterrain features (rocks, terrain depressions, stumps) I am learning to live, from an immersion stand-point, with linear fire plans. I still think they are now WW2 accurate, but it is likely a reasonable design choice, rather than the increased ammo and time that would be needed to simulate rectangular or box fire plans. Also, I am learning to live with the pre-planned bombardment. I had thought it was beyond the scope of CM--though CM1 had it, the lack of linear fire plans made it much less potent. It still seems weird to me to drop a line of shells behind bocage--only to be usually done on turn 1. But it does provide, usually, for interesting decisions (and I image it as a "short-cut" for an actual more shelled rectangular fire plan, and if the scenario designers understand the issues it can be interesting. I have no idea how if is still causes problems in QB--but most people have house rules for this. As a major critic in the past, I am very pleased.

So, 3 squads on the attack, say, go around an obstacle, and engage an enemy squad which is in good cover. In some siimulations, the 3 squads could overwhelm the attacker because the defender could only fire on one "unit", and the other 2 would be free to attack cleanly. But, in CM2, as in RL, if the 3 attacking squads are bunched up, the defender's firepower could, in essence, be almost triple in potency because the "metal" outgoing in defense could have triple the number of targets in the space it is traveling to. This is particularly evident if the defensive squad has something like rifle grenades or a panzerfaust--raw HE to put into the fight space. So, as the attacker, even if the natural strategy is to isolate a defensive area and then put maximum firepower on it, attacker density is an issue, and a "killer stack" is not always best--some simulations would have "stacking limits" or penalties, but in CM2, the reason for those limits/penalties follows organically from the realistic battle conditions. Right? The same goes for moving company(ies)--spread so as to avoid having a follow-up platoon getting hit by something shot at a lead element, directly or by indirect. No clumping. And if a unit is not needed in the battlespace, keep it back out of harm's way--more is definitely not always better. Maybe, one of these days, I will try CMSF, where this is likely even more evident...but first, I will be very interested to see the CM2 dynamic with Russian WW2, particularly early war, forces.

Fizou, I think your tactics were masterful in this battle. Only 11 KIA? Against a superior force? I don't want to make too much of it, since I want to see the AAR continue, and no one disheartened. But...really....

I agree. I don't have an absolute position on this--and I am a gamer, not military. I often reflect on the difference. For example, a Half-track or Armored Car may have been great for recon in WW2 real-life, because a centimeter in metal made you a lot less vulnerable that riding around in a truck/jeep--but in the CM1/CM2 battlespace, generally, keep them back(except for especially designed scenarios). And when I said I don't like to maneuver, I was exaggerating. I tend to move "slinky-style"--put something out, find out where the enemy is, suppress/kill it, then move the rest of the forces forward. Against the AI that is often effective. In CM2, particularly, with its accurate spotting protocals, moving companies en mass in the offense in the open, like the last C and F scenario, almost makes me ill. Put it this way--moving has potential major adverse consequences (particular if one likes to play "blind" and with a minimum of reloads--as in real life), and one needs to take that into account. But, please, keep commenting. I am learning.

Bill H--finally noticed where you live. I grew up in Midlothian, lived in the Fan, and went to Medical School at MCV. When I visit family, I still like to go to Byrd and Maymont Park. On topic: Thinking about it, attacking against a human opponent must be much incredibly harder than fighting the AI. For example, against the AI, when a hedgerow is cleared, it, generally, stays cleared. Against a human opponent, I would think that one tactic for the defense would be to put some men behind/against the hedgerow, but others back out of harms way. When the unit at the hedgerow is incapacitated, and the attacker is moving forward, shove the new units up against the hedgerow, and catch the attacker in the open. PT and the rest of the scenario makers try to make it fun for us to play the AI, by sculpting terrain and buildings to shield the AI defenders, but it must be nothing like H2H play--with the need for each side to tactically shift reserves, and actually "maneuver". H2H then, I can see a lot more uses of smoke, including misdirection, "messing with the opponents head", and blinding of movements, which would be mostly irrelevant when playing the AI. So my not using much smoke may be because I only play against the AI. This also means that I won't become exceptional at CM2 an WW2 tactics unless I play H2H--which, because of work, and family happiness issues, I am not ready to do yet.

I am going to do multiple readings of both JasonC and Bill H's replies. Seeing Bill H slice up some opponents in the AARs has been dazzling at times. Yes, JasonC the reason I have not used smoke much is, I think, what you surmised. Usually in fighting the AI, I want to focus on a particular defense position, isolate it, and own it by project power from afar (the idea is similar in chess)--usually by trying to induce poor fire discipline on the defense by running a scout. I don't want my fire element to be too close to the enemy, because I want to completely break or kill him with essentially no casualties, except maybe a scout. Move forward the fire element when the defensive position is broken, then repeat. In CMBN, with all the hedgerow, it can almost be a bit monotonous, clearing all the hedgerow cells. Spoiler alert about the 3rd mission in Road to Montebourg: I said I was going to use smoke, but after looking at the map, I did not--I used the 105 turn 1 HE barrage to blast the right side of the village. The hedgerow already did the job of chopping up the enemy defense. I blew a hole in the bocage on the right, ran a scout in, and then blasted everything the triggered/saw. [moved forward, assaulted the right side of the town, etc] Bill H, you are using some, to me, highly sophisticated arguments which I will need to reflect on, and take to heart. In a super hard situation, the Hard Knocks come to mind, I can see needing to blind part of the defense. Practically, though, I tend to mortar/HE the worrisome tree line or defensive position, if I can, to weaken it. Admittedly, always against an AI, who is unlikely to cleverly be behind the position--a human is more able to understand and implement the idea that to hold a piece of key terrain, being around it rather than in it is often smarter when facing a major attack. (In H2H, given the pre-planned bombardments, it would seem crazy to me to put units in key terrain at start up, if one can help it.) Using smoke as a "mountain" in order to maneuver is just something I am going to have to learn. For one thing, I try to maneuver as little as possible. For example, with the usual map sizes, running people around in trucks or jeeps--as a mobile reserve, and I have seen you do it successfully, Bill H--usually makes me too nervous. Can anyone point me to an AAR where smoke was used effectively on the offense? What I thought I knew about WW2 tactics from CM1 and previous simulations...well CM2 showed my how huge my gaps of knowledge were, and I feel I have learned a lot over the past year by reading these posts and looking at the AARs. [broken--but, as a practical matter, getting the smoke in the right place, in SBurke's situation is difficult. Presumably one does not have tanks--one could then just blast. If you have the mortars with HE, point targeting the unit would take the same amount of time and would, I think, be more effective. Running a few men to the rise, then prone, would be an option--those cowering enemy will break when enough bullets zip around them--or the rifle HE grenades, if the attacker is American. I am not saying one should not use smoke, but it is hard for me to think of many configurations where in Sburke's described situation it would be practical/optimal]

Nice discussion, thanks. I had forgotten (PTSD style) about the Hard Knocks scenarios--nothing could save me in School, and I don't remember whether I used much smoke in University, or just HE/MG pounded positions. So, I am on the third battle of Road to Montebourg. I had to decide whether to use my 105s in the initial bombardment as HE (usually behind hedgerows, or guessing where an FO might be), or smoke-- I will try smoke. The call in time for this asset is so long that, tactically, it is a real decision which needs to be made. Theoretically, I can see how infantry smoke could be good in close, urban combat. But I did not remember using it in the later C and F scenarios--I will have to reflect on that more. Just the mechanics of moving around infantry companies has been daunting enough for me up to now (I am learning to pick just what I need on an attack, leave the rest behind, and to widen the spacing between units, so as to minimize casualties from all the bullets/fragments flying around) And PT, since I am mostly playing your stuff, I should probably to your advice with regard to smoke. I think WEGO makes the smoke issue more complicated. If it turns out that the smoke is not entirely effective, you don't want a unit trying to carry out a vulnerable movement order for a minute. On the other hand, if you just use a scout team to see about the smokes effectiveness--even if effective, the smoke might not be the next turn, when you send out the larger force.

I have played this simulation for awhile, and am struck by how using smoke, on the attack, is something that I have never done. 1. Usually I prefer to suppress the enemy units directly--run a scout team out there, have it fired upon, and then deal directly with those threats. If I have the HE on a mortar, or some MGs and tanks, I seem to pick those to use, given the time constraints 2. I don't trust smoke. Running a platoon, let's say, across open ground, depending on smoke to keep them safe--gives me chest pain to think about. And if I become suddenly close to the enemy by using the smoke as cover, with it likely having me spotted, and I not spotting it, bad things are going to occur. Sure, if I have more powerful unit--but I have to be incredibly confident that I know about all the enemy units in the area. But maybe I am missing something (and, always playing against the AI, that may affect my experience). Is there a scenario where smoke is vital, and do you use it often on the attack? [unrelated question, is there a scenario which has planes?]

Thank you. That is correct agusto, the WinRAR message confused me (and, I am sure, others--so maybe this question was not in vain).

I feel weird about asking this, because I am maybe missing an obvious answer. When I want to download something from the Repository, it seems to be in .rar form, and when I want to get it I need to seem to pay $30 to get the translation. Is that right?

Back to the OP. The scouting, and therefore the need for patience, is the biggest adaptation I have had to go through from CM to CM2. (and I understand that is an increase in realism) In CM, and in most tactical games I had played before, I often wanted to initially present myself, when the attacker, as a compact wall of firepower, in order to overwhelm the defender at a point. But, in CM2, as Bill H has shown us in multiple AARs, and, again with the increased realism, that can be an error. Coming up to hedgerow: whether you have 2 scouts, a squad, or 2 squads, if the enemy has some HE to throw at you, having 2 squads might just mean you have many more casualties when the first HE explosion occurs. I think the difference is, compared to CM and the old non-computer games--1: your unit doesn't slowly "attrit" damage, in that something exploding in the middle of your squad could instantly kill everyone. If you have more people in the area, you just have more dead. (we could talk about the modeling of microterrain issues here, but I think the CM2 model is more accurate than CM). and 2: with the realistic modeling of metal flying around, it is not just "unit A targeting unit B", but the enemy firing at your advance team could not-so-incidentally kill units behind it or around it. This has meant, for me, that optimum unit spacing/density is much, much lower than I was used to, and it is still something I struggle with--keep the main force back from the scouts so it is not hit be fire directed at the scouts!, in general, those with rifles are inherently spotters/scouts, not the firepower, and should be pulled out of the way and let the heavy weapons/artillery do the work. I thought I was good at this WW2 tactical stuff until I started playing CM2. Now I realize how lousy I was, am trying to improve (again, watching Bill H in some of these AARs is astounding). I thought attack success = concentrated mass x speed. Maybe with heavy cavalry in the Middle Ages it was that simple, or with the Russians at Stalingrad, but in 1943/4 on the Western front, there seems to be so much metal flying through the air (and soldiers with only a helmet, and no body armor!--painful to think about that they only had cloth on their chest to stop a metal fragment), the need to skillfully scout, and the if-we-see-you,-you-are-dead of Modern Warfare, is more evident to me now. As for the scouting AFVs, I think there role has not changed from their, extensively discussed, role in CM. In general (except, as noted above, in some carefully designed scenarios), they stay out of the fight, except, near the end, as mobile MGs, well back of the main line of attack, to mop up enemy stragglers, or as a long-distance poke at a small enemy resistance point. Now, when we get to the East Front, someone is going to design a scenario where the optimum tactic is for a German infantry company in Halftracks barrels up to a town and unloads for an assault, but expect the forum to explode in controversy.

Could we, perhaps, have a sense of how much time remains in the scenario, and the casualty/remaining forces count? There is a interesting punch/counterpunch going on--with an interesting, floating, incomplete front line. But I am losing the overall context of how the battle is going.

Your AARs are effective: I am drawn to the game each time you do one. A scenario designer question: Did the French make any horrible mistakes in this campaign, historically? And if they did, how does one model that, or one does not even try? There must be some judgment issues here. Theoretically, anything other than a crushing German victory would, historically, be a great French victory. But it is like the "Sedan" factor in the initial WW2 invasion of France, you can't unwrite a surprise--no French WW2 player is going to march the bulk of his forces into the low countries. How does on account for this?

If it is like CM1, and I think it is, I think womble is correct.

Is going down the right side possible, by-passing DZ1?

The Crete German Airborne Campaign in CMAK was a classic, in my opinion. For some reason, I am still having a hard time having fun with the CM2 series. I will stick with it, but I am puzzled by my feelings.

Having weighed in on this from the beginning, I think that things are better than they were on release. In my last game, I called in off-board artillery on an enemy 75 meters away caused a spotting round to end up hitting my own troops, with a devastating effect. I was pleased with the improvement in the inaccuracy of the artillery--if not the result. I am even caving on the linear fire plans: though the reality was probably rectangular boxes, the linear fire plans simulate that without having to increase the shells from off-board units--it is a game mechanics decision. My opinion has always been that it is hard for CM2 to simulate micro-environmental issues--rocks to hide behind, depressions in the land, that a soldier would desperately use. Given that CM2 tracks every piece of flying metal, the lack of improvised "body armor" is an issue. I already put everyone on a covered fire arc, then cancel those I want not to have it. It is a useful suggestion to have everyone on hide. One could have as a default CM2, that when troops moved "Quick"--which is what I usually use when moving troops in a battle space, they would automatically end there turn in "hide", and you would have to counteract that if you wished. On balance, I might even prefer that. Or, to torture BFC, they could have a "some hide" command, so that everyone is not sticking their head out. On the one hand, my inclination is to defend BFC for difficult game design, and marketing, decisions. I might argue that the simulation is already too tough for most new, casual, gamers. On the other hand, any idea that they are absolutely right is.....well, this has been a great franchise because it has evolved. (? darkest hour--the CMSF release, I think. We are now mostly dealing with judgment decisions) Effectively toning down the artillery, without relying on the gamer to glean stuff from the Boards, might...and I don't know for sure...be wise.

This is hilarious. I am glad I saw this thread. After being away from the game for awhile, I returned because WW2 tactical simulations are really my favorite. I thought I would try The Scottish Corridor to see if I could get captured back into the fun of it, after being thrilled/traumatized by C and F. Beautifully researched, and the first map is astonishing--I like junk metal and other terrain do-dads. And I turn on the trees, instead of just seeing the trunks, from time to time just to enjoy the scenery. It is like being in an RPG. But I am glad to have been informed that this is considered a tough campaign. I have found the first mission long and tough--gloriously so. I am not quite done, but now I won't be so hard on myself. In general, my tactics in CM1 and before seem like child's play compared to what I have to use in CM2. What is the Green, Regular, Veteran version you are talking about? Are those different types in the in the regular download? [Re: bunkers--I consider them "destroyed" when the occupants are dead, and didn't know the bunker itself could be destroyed. Can it? I had no problem KOing a bunker with a 75mm shot at point blank range.]

Nice info. Thank you.

First, I will agree that Gromit's posts is one of the best I have ever seen on this site. And I want flamethrowers modeled in CM2, to the extent they were there. But sometimes I need to step away from CM2, indeed now is one of them--and play something more abstract for awhile. I was never in war, but I am a physician. And sometimes one does things which might hurt people, not because one wants to hurt people (at least, in my case), but to overall help people. Wargames give people an idea of how to use force. For what reason they use force? That is very individual.

I am going to give this a shot: The inaccuracy is probably about the random vehicle being able to call in mortar support. From a doctrinaire and practical point, I don't think the units in WW2 were as flexible in C2 (which is, to my knowledge, not a term they even used then). Allowing weapon platoon support teams to call in mortar fire would probably historically overpower their actual abilities of that era. Of course, one could argue that since, theoretically, they could do it, I guess, we should be able to do it. That involves some subtle game design decisions--which could be argued. I tend to like game design decisions that encourage actual WW2 reality, but that, I will admit, is only a preference. Radios were a huge leap from the usual visual and hand signal communication. Although the US units had more of them than other armies of the time, I think their use was still not quite settled.

Very nice info. But another complicating issue (there are a gazillion) is that I believe the doctrinaire uses of an HMG is not just to kill, but to break units, or deny territory. Running toward an unsupressed HMG would be, I think, in general, thought to be ludicrous. Thus, to ask what the kill ability of an HMG is, on a technical level, is like asking what would the kill level be of a squad running across a minefield. In reality, maybe some troops would get across. But no commander in WW2 in the Western Theater, other than Russian with the NKVD behind them, is going to order an open ground assault against an unsuppressed HMG. [someone is now going to post the 1:million exception] There are even some cultural issues. A "hit" in the Western Theater generally, I think, meant out of effective action--this is not like fighting drugged up Phillipinos during the insurrection against the US earlier in the 20th century (this is not derogatory--I am just alluding to the issue of the need in that case for the development of 45 cal pistols) Whatever tweaks need to be made to make that a CM2 reality also, "need" to be made. Maybe they already have been made. I certainly trust Battlefront will make them. [it would seem there are only 2 threads in CM2. 1. HMG and mortar threads. 2. All the others]

I am glad someone in Modern Warfare notices the mortar issue--not just us WW2 types. My suspect in ghe MG performance issue: the world is analog, but computer games are digital. In RL there are an infinite number of ray trajectories, but that is not true digitally, and that would be emphasized with distance. Just a guess--someone can now pipe in about how ridiculous that idea is.

The Entente have scattered attacks. The Germans are on interior lines. That means the Germans are about to concentrate on ............ and destroy (or try to destroy) the enemy, then move to the next area. I think we are close to finding out where ........... is.