DaveDash

Exactly right. Since the lead squad is your anchor and not manouver element anyway. I like both wedge and vee. They both have their advantages. In this situation probably vee would have been a better formation, but moving into the great unknown, such as over a ridge, I'd probably prefer wedge. Even with no friendly fire simulation, LOS blockages such as trees etc means that not all your guys in wedge can bring fires on the enemy. The point in wedge anyway is to shoot to the flanks or have two manouver elements - its not designed to shoot across the anchor squad - so even with no friendly fire you still want to move your manouver squads.

If I cant blow things up in MOUT, and have to advance across enemy fields of fire, this is what I do: 1) Dismount infantry ASAP under the cover of smoke, and take up overwatch positions on the rooftops of buildings. Wait a while so they scan for RPGers. There is -nothing- worse than losing an entire squad to an RPG, so get your guys out of those tin cans of death asap. 2) Move three Strykers to overwatch positions over my axis of attack, give them target arcs over suspected enemy positions, or, if known enemy positions, start surpressing with MG or 40mm grenade fires. I usually hide them behind buildings and such too so RPGs have a greater chance of missing. 3) The fourth Stryker is the guy with the most balls. He is to go as fast as he can down the axis of attack for about 200m or whatever distance required, pop smoke, then reverse back up it. WHen you FAST, RPGS on a laterial trajectory miss a lot if fired by anything but the most elite units. This Stryker tends to draw out most hidden RPG enemies. If it gets hit, I've only lost one Stryker and not half my platoon. If the crew is stranded I surpress all enemy positions and send their wingman Stryker to pick them up. 4) Destroy revealed infantry with friendly forces in overwatch positions. Usually they'll open up themselves once spotting and CoC information has been passed around. 5) Pick up infantry, re-arm, and take up new overwatch positions using bounding overwatch technique. I usually pick the tallest buildings to use as overwatch, and if they're going to be a foodhold/strongpoint, I use smoke to get to the roof so the attacking squad doesnt get decimated bit by bit. I also give move waypoints to each floor, so my infantry pauses a bit and regroups at each floor. If possible I use the hunt command. Using these tactics, I took very little casualties on GeorgeMC's 'Rescue' scenario, and lost no vehicles. I also only lost I think 2 or 3 vehicles in his Hammertime scenario. They're a little bit gamey but until infantry behaves as it's meant to one needs to adapt. In company sized scenarios you usually end up with way more Strykers than targets to shoot at, I find it easier losing a Styker than an entire squad. [ December 13, 2007, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

You are exactly right Bil, covering danger zones they'd use bounding overwatch. But I wanted to simulate an 'ambush' scenario hence the oblivious tactical movement. Ill test proper tactical movement a bit later on, and see if there is any advantage to it in CM:SF. The map is available from CMMODS - it's not my map. > Have you found any benefit to splitting squads, other than stretching out your units to defend more territory? The main benefit I have found is for greater control over squad movement. Less chance of a squad having half its men exposed, etc. I am currently testing to see if there is any manouver advantage of having a split squad, since the lack of spotting power is a big issue. I'd say from a defensive point of view however split squads are definately worth while. Im currently working on an Afghanistan mission where your firebase gets assaulted. One of your squads is patrolling the town far below in the valley and is in danger of being encircled and cut off - only supporting MG fires can help them. Splitting squads will be essential in this mission to cover all the defensive points of your firebase and to get your cut-off squad out alive.

Hehe well you're going to have some badly cut up Stryker Rifle Platoons then. Unless the commanders intent is to keep civilian infrastructure safe, anything that so much looks as if it may have OPFOR in it gets blown to smitherines. I learnt that the hard way after getting half my soldiers decimated in the 2nd campaign mission, and I absolutely hate seeing those little U.S. soldiers getting mowed down by some farmer with an AK that I missed. War is hell, mate.

I don't mind MOUT. I just reload if my squads do something stupid that gets them killed. If they run around the front of a house because the back door doesn't work, then I just use a little imagination and pretend the back is boobytrapped, baricaded/etc. I then just reload, and give them slightly more survivable orders since I play WEGO (and save every turn). I have rarely seen in MOUT situations some problems that people describe with vehicles spinning, etc. My BIGGEST issue is the LOS/LOF issue when guys are shooting down at you and your vhicles just sit around doing nothing. Moving vehicles around isnt a big deal if you use pause commands, then they don't drive all over the place and stay on the road. I currently enjoy MOUT, but I will love it when the issues are cleared up because it will allow more freedom. Right now however I just smoke the hell out of anything before moving infantry around and blow up everything else. Not the most heroic way to get things done, but it works.

So here we go guys. Nice line formation, full squads, up the middle we go with the hunt command. But wait? Waits this? I saw something move in that trench up there.... Massive surpressive fires are bought down upon the enemy force, they are unable to even return fire effectively. Manouver elements are free to go where they want. The enemy suffers heavy casualties immediately Left/Right squads close for the kill while M240's blast away at the enemy positions Eventually the M240 gunners run low on ammo, and it's time to disengage End result: US: 1 wounded Syria: 11 Casualties The fundamental difference was that the lead U.S. squad spotted the guys BEFORE they got time to ambush them. This is the key difference between split squads and full squads. Their spotting seems to be significantly better, and you can see for yourself the results. So it seems it does pay to have your lead unit together for spotting purposes. Next I will test with more 'realistic' tactics, such as bounding overwatch movement, target arcs, split flanking elements, and try and destroy the enemy instead of just disengaging.

More deadly RPG fire rains down on HQ/Weapons, more screams are heard in between bursts of gunfire. Not enough surpressive fires are being laid down on the enemy. It's time to get out of here. Smoke is popped, and under some covering fire, most of the U.S. troops back it out of the killzone U.S. 18 Casualties Syria 11 Casualties Note: Even breaking contact after the lead section was engaged would have been difficult due to deadly RPG fire that caused chaos in my ranks, but a real U.S. Platoon probably would have done that in any case, suffering far less casualties. My lead elements also had trouble throwing smoke to help fall back, because of the heavy volume of fire they were taking. So, to see what would happen doing it the 'noob' way, no formation, full squads, march in a nice line up the middle... the U.S. patrol should get cut up even worse, right? More to come....

I loaded up Rural Map 2 to test around with real life formations to see how effective they were. What I ended up discovering was a key fundmental factor to consider when using split squads. At first, I just wanted to test a real life formation on patrol vs a Syrian ambush. I chose the wedge formation because it is one of the more robust real life formations, good fires to the flanks and rear, decent fires to the front, good manouver elements. This U.S. platoon is patrolling an area where enemy contact isn't to be expected (Hence no bounding overwatch movement). I gave the guys the hunt command and told them to be on their way. Contact! The lead element takes fire from a well hidden trench on the hillside, and they don't even see it. The lead element hits the deck, so far no casualties, and the manouver elements move to take up positions of fire. One section providers covering fire in each platoon while the other section manouvers. The weapons sections try to spread out and make for cover to bring surpressive fires upon the enemy. RPG's come flying in everywhere, everyone hits the deck. Screaming can be heard over the sound of gunfire, and when the smoke clears 1st Squad is cut up bad and the M240 gunner of 2nd section is badly wounded. More incoming RPG fire causes more casualties in the now bunched up HQ and weapons sections, no surpressive fires can be bought to bear up on the Syrians as the last M246 gunner is seriously wounded. The U.S. platoon finally starts gaining fire superiority and manouver elements close with the enemy to engage. 3rd Platoon's fireteam is cut up pretty bad advancing on the right flank however by an undetected Syrian squad hidden in the trees. The firefight rages on, 1st squads situation is dire, unable to move from their open position, 3rd squad has been cut up badly, and HQ and weapons have all taken hits. Even though the U.S. Platoon has the Syrians surpressed, their terrain advantage is keeping them safe. The U.S. ammo situation is getting serious and they will have to break contact soon.

Duh. I completely didnt see that rename button

I like what you've done there, how do I rename a unit to get proper unit designations?

> I have been trying to design a scenario where the US AI attacks a Syrian held village in very hilly terrain. I gave the US four M1 Seps and gave the Syrians lots of AT-14s and the M1's blew them away. One M1 took 10 (yes 10!) consecutive hits from Kornets and continued to fire back at the ATGM teams. It was immobilzed, big deal, but in such a good firing position that that was unimportant. The ATGM teams were knocked out for no real loss, game over. I dropped the M1s straight away from the OB. Channel the M1's into areas with mines, or use mines to channel them into kill boxes. The AI won't run over mines. Be smart in your placement of mines too so they jam up vehicle formations and slow the advance down. Even channel M1's into mud with mines early on so they stuck. Unless the damn heavy things are driving along paved roads they get stuck often on damp ground and end up useless for most of the fight. That's really the best way of taking them out. Use ATGMs in trenches in reverse slope positions and not on top of buildings, since tanks have a harder time clearing out trenches and will generally ignore reverse slope positions without any 'lobbing' weapon to attack it with. Support your ATGMs at close ranges with RPG-29's and use hide/ambush AI plan combinations to get top down shots on the M1A2SEP's from elevated terrain positions. Use fake bunkers that can't be used against you with cannon fodder infantry (or purely empty) so the tanks waste ammo destroying empty bunkers with direct fire. Not sure if it works against the AI but a human will waste ammo destroying fake bunkers. I've also had T-72 (2001)'s take out M1A2SEPs by landing flanking shots at close ranges by hiding a T-72 behind a house or terrain feature. It won't last long against the other three, but it's job is done. Most players dont use cover arcs when advancing so your tanks will get off one shot at least and usually disable the M1A2SEP. [ December 13, 2007, 04:58 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

You dont need to read everything. Probably more along the defensive operations, capabilities, and limitation sections of the FMs Regarding creating challanging, but realistic scenarios, its all using the terrain to your advantage. I have designed a scenario (based on an old CMBO scenario) where the U.S. has a 2 to 1 advantage over the Syrians and attacks at night. My last playtest of the scenario the U.S. suffered roughly 60% casualties and I employed proper tactics and know where the enemy is. I wanted it to be as realistic as possible but not a push-over. The key is to get the U.S. forces engaged close and without vehicle support if nessesary. If you read those FM's its quite permissable for U.S. Rifle Platoons to operate outside of Stryker support, and in the particular scenario I designed the initial Rifle Company has none for numerous reasons (surprise attack, ATGM/RPG threats, etc). Using the terrain to the Syrians advantage is key. One of the best ways to slaughter the U.S. squads are to use reverse slope defences. This is when you have a Syrian squad/platoon element on the backside of a slope that the U.S. is going to cross. Trenches for the Syrians increase their survivability significantly but annoyingly they are easy to spot on the map (I wish this could be changed). Even so however without trenches the defenders will dig foxholes provided they dont move. How do you get the player to cross that ridge? Well, mines and terrain factors of course. Place mines with cover fire from machine guns to filter the U.S. player where you want him to go. Try not to clump Syrian units together, especially in obvious targets like buildings. Having them behind buildings is sometimes better, since I know personally I like to level any suspicious building I see with HE fire or artillery. Fake trenches are also good to waste U.S. ammo, but just make sure they are covered by machine gun fire or filled with mines so the U.S. player cant use them to his advantage. Tanks with limited fields of exposure behind buildings or walls covering danger areas can get flanking shots on U.S. armour and Strykers. The use of AI plans is key. Good use of Hide/Ambush/Hide/Assaut plans after playtesting should really give the U.S. player a headache. Lure the U.S. player into a U shaped defensive position, unhide, then unleash hell on his flanks. Most players like to advance in a nice line and you will utterly decimate his formation. Supporting elements are key. Make sure all your defensive units can support each other, so the U.S. player cannot defeat your defenses in detail. For example, have machine guns on the hill behind your reverse slope defense. One big advantage the U.S. player has are Javelins and tons of ammo. Either remove his Strykers but putting him in a situation which would warrent it (e.g mountian assault with heavy ATGM presence, infantry must clear the mountians) or limit ammo supplies. In an ongoing operation its not unrealistic to assume limited ammo supplies, especially for reinforcements that were hastily sent to the battlefold. Otherwise given 3 x U.S. infantry squad with 3360 5.56mm bullets and 3 Javelines, with supporting fires from MG teams with 3000 7.62mm rounds, they can surpress everything any anything all day. Given all the above, I guarentee the U.S. will lose a 1:1 matchup and will suffer heavy loses in a overmatch situation (2:1) which allow for much more realistic fights. [ December 13, 2007, 04:44 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

Here is some worthwhile reading for those budding mission designers out there like me who want to create realistic scenarios. FM for Stryker Brigade Combat Team (SBCT): http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-31/c01.htm SBCT Infantry Battalion: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-21/index.html Probably the most important for CM:SF: SBCT Rifle Company: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-11/index.html SBCT Rifle Platoon: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-21-9/index.html Lots of reading involved, but worth it.

Ive played right up to night stalkers in 1.4, but the game crashes when loading the next mission. Apart from that, the only issue was the 'Normandy' mission that was plagued with LOS issues.

> I was one of the big opponents of the modern scenario in the first place. After having bought the game and played around with it, and experienced the "issues" as Steve so delicately descibes them, I have kept quiet on CMSF, and I had nothing constructive to say. The problems arn't nessesarily to do with modern. They are more along the lines of a more complex 1:1 engine. Just the lethality of modern combat makes them "worse". I really enjoy the modern setting. I've been hanging out for a modern game wargame like this for donkeys years. I think the forum is broken into two camps, those that enjoy modern and those that enjoy WW2 more. I guess the modern guys are a bit more forgiving of the game and your post illustrates that.

Would it be helpful to have a stickied, moderated bug thread? Instead of about 50 million topics concerning about 50 million things popping up everywhere, one thread where bugs can be reported might make BFC's day a lot easier. It should be for bugs only, where bugs can be cataloged in a constructive manner with screenshots, examples, etc. Game balance, feature requests, random discussion, or complaints about game features should be deleted so there is a nice list to work through.

How do you get the force structure to work in CM:SF? It's rather different from CMx1. Giving similiar formations the U.S. would probably wipe the floor with the Syrians considering quality differences.

Yes. In my map above I have simulated a bridge and water using marsh. However I think in CMBO bridges could be destroyed? Which is about the only thing lacking from CM:SF at the moment regarding bridges apart from asthetics.

You've covered the main points. One small note for WEGO players. Pause for at least 30 seconds with Stryker smoke, and other smoke at least wait out the 60 seconds before charging into it. One other suggestion regarding smoke (perhaps suggestions should be done in general area?). Units need to be able to fire through smoke. If Im playing a Human and he pops smoke, I want to be able to hose the area with automatic weapons, and defensively smoke then can be used as an ammo wasting/decoy technique. At the moment, I don't think you can fire INTO smoke since LOS is blocked. [ December 12, 2007, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

> check out UFO:Extraterrestrials forums And example of a game series plagued by some real issues... Still highly enjoyable though, but oh, the complaining. Jeez.

Excellent post Drusus.

Well, maybe I could send it to one of you guys to take a look. I don't have CMBO on this machine and just played it by ear ---------------- OPORD: 07-11 Reference Map, Series Map V11 Time Zone used Throughout the Order: Local TASK ORGANIZATION: A/3 Stryker Rifle Company (Dismounted) A/3 Recon Platoon (Dismounted) 3rd Btn 120-mm Section A Company 81-mm Section B/3 Stryker Rifle Platoon B/3 Stryker Rifle Platoon B/3 Stryker Rifle Platoon B/3 Stryker HQ B Company 81-mm Section A/2 1st Platoon Tank 1 A/2 1st Platoon Tank 2 1. SITUATION Our supply lines have been raided by highly skilled enemy forces, UAV's have detected their base of operations in the Mountian region of Kashal. They are using the town of Al Samkit as a base of operations. Division HQ has commanded you to clear the area of enemy forces and capture the town, protecting our rear supply lines as the main effort moves forward. a. Enemy Forces. ANNEX B (Intelligence Overlay [prepared by battalion S2]). (1) The company is opposed by elements Red Company at unknown strength. Exact force compesition is unknown due to terrain restrictions but estimates are no more than a Platoon size at best. The enemy has small arms weapons, RPG's, ATGM's, Heavy Machine gun emplacements, and may call on company mortars for support. The enemy is also known to have NVG elements. (2) Current indications are the enemy is dug in with prepared positions around the objectives. They are known to have high motivation and based on past attacks are extremely effective and very deadly. Do not underestimate their capabilities, and although we have the advantage of attacking at night, some of them have NVG. b. Friendly Forces. (1) 1st Platoon attacks at 0400 hours to seize Objective Hill 105. The intent is to clear Hill 105, and provide overwatch over the rest of Company A's attack on the town of Al Salkit. (2) 2nd and 3rd Platoon is the main effort and will seize Objective BRIDGE, before clearly enemy through the valley and size Al Salkit. (3) 1st Recon Platoon is in the zone of operation and has reported minimal enemy activity. 1st Recon is to move forward and identify enemy positions for the rest of Company A. (4) Due to heavy enemy ATGM and RPG activity, Company A will carry out the mission dismounted and without Stryker support. If need be however, Company B can be on station to support Company A in around 30 minutes, and two tanks from 3rd Mech can be sent in 60 minutes. 2. MISSION Company A attacks at night to seizes Objective BRIDGE and the town of Al Samkit at 0400 hours in order to prevent the enemy from moving in behind our supply lines. Company A is dismounted to try and use the element of surprise, and also due to heavy enemy ATGM and RPG activity. 3. EXECUTION a. Concept of Operation. ANNEX C (Operations Overlay). (1) Maneuver. 1st Recon is to move forward through the cover of the trees and identify as many enemy positions as possible. 1st Platoon then is to advance and secure Hill 105 to clear the hill of enemy forces, and then provide overwatch over the town of Al Salkit for 2nd and 3rd Platoons attack. 2nd and 3rd Platoon are to sieze objective BRIDGE and clear the valley in order to attack Al Salkit. If enemy resistance is stiff, A company is to fortify its positions and wait for B company to move through and seize the town. Two Tanks from 3rd Mech will also arrive but should advance with infantry due to the high ATGM and RPG threat in the area. (2) Fire support. (a) Priority of fires. Initially to 1st Platoon. Upon seizure of Hill 105, priority shifts to 2nd and 3rd Platoons. ( Priority targets. No priority targets at this point, since exact enemy locations are unknown. b. Tasks to maneuver units. (1) 1st Platoon. Destroy enemy elements on Hill 105 and take up overwatch positions. (2) 2nd Platoon. Assault and clear enemy forces around Objective BRIDGE, then support 3rd Platoon. (3) 3rd Platoon. Move through 2nd Platoons position and assault the town of Al Salkit. c. Tasks to combat support units. (1) 1st Recon Team. Advance through cover and determine enemy positions for Supporting Fires and attacking units. c. Service and Support units (1) Medical: Company casualty collection point is grid 5443. (2) EPW: EPW collection point is grid 5632.

Yes they are stuck in the middle, but they have to try and make the jump otherwise we'd be playing low graphic abstracted wargames for the rest of our lives.

Which one is Valley of Trouble again? Because I've just finished a CM:SF scenario based on an old CMBO scenario I played where you have to take a town in mountian regions, but you've got to cross a bridge and go through this twisty valley to do it. Sound familiar?

Well I agree. I've said that ages ago in some other thread, I'd be quite happy to pay more for a game. The fact is though that the gaming industry is becoming a large multi-billion dollar super competitive market, and it's now acting like any other big market. It's not the days of old any more. Just for the record, it annoys me even more to see people whine that they paid $40 for a computer game. $40 is absolutely nothing. Where I come from new PC games are $80-$120, and income is pretty much the same.