TheVulture

Outright contradictions are not that uncommon when comparing descriptions of the same engagement from both sides. I remember reading about one example from the Ardennes offensive. The American AAR was basically "we were attached by a German force but held our line and drove them off."
The German version of the same events was "we advanced, broke through the US resistance and proceeded on to our objective." It is hard to reconcile those at first glance: you wouldn't really expect there to be any disagreement about whether the US defensive line was breached or not.
The author of the book big some more digging to resolve the issue. It boiled down to neither side understanding where the other side's lines were. IIRC the US forces had repositioned some days earlier to shorten their lines, with the effect of leaving a no man's land between the forces that neither side was aware of: both regarded it as event held terrain. The German mission was to break through in to this territory. Their advance brought them obliquely in to contact with the US line. So naturally they engaged where necessary and continued to advance where there was no resistance. On the map, they kind of 'bounced' off the US line, changing their line of advance a little which took them away from the MLR again and back in to no man's land. They interpreted this as breaking through a thinly held line in to the enemy rear.
For the US forces obviously this looked like Germans engaging their line and then pulling back  without achieving anything, not realising that this was more a case of the Germans passing by close in front of them rather than trying to penetrate the line the US was actually holding (because the German movement wouldn't make any sense if the Germans correctly knew the US line).

I do much the same as others. Physically position my troops on the battlefield (ignoring terrain) according to formations. So put all units of a platoon together (using the platoon HQ to find them all, since there may be attached units). Group platoons of the same company together into a column (1st platoon, at the back, 3rd at the front), put columns of companies next to each other according to which battalions they are in. Specialist teams that are part of the company / battalion get positioned near the relevant HQs.
 
I usually then think in terms of jobs for the main infantry formations. Company A advances here, company B advances there, company C in reserve, or whatever the plan might be. Then assign the other units to work with one or another task force. So I might parcel my engineer platoons out between the companies equally, or might assign them all to the guys who are moving into urban areas rather than to the company trying to advance through the fields. Likewise a tank platoon might be held back to commit where they are needed, or might be pre-assigned to a company because I think their advance will need a lot of HE overwatch support.
 
Basically, the idea is think heirarchically. Organise your guys according the the organisation they already have. Think in terms of tasks, starting with the largest formation you have (and I usually think in terms of the infantry formations because they tend to be the ones that can't switch jobs due to limited mobility etc.). Then work your way down to lower levels until you have reached the level you want to (some people faced with a battalion to handle might keep things manageable by treating each platoon as an indivisible unit most of the time, while others might want to get into squad-splitting detail for virtually every unit they have).
 
Above all, take your time. In a large battle, don't think of organising your forces as  the quick preliminary you have to go through before the game starts. It can be a significant chunk of time of working out plans and possibilities. Treat it as a part of the game, that might take a while (and as others have said, don't be afraid to save and come back to it for another session later). Hurrying through the setup to get to 'the good bit' can et you in to a lot more trouble when the fighting starts.
 
 

Well they have an list of which modules / games get worked on in which order.  But one of the immutable laws of software development is that things always take twice as long as you expect (even after you take this law into account).

Well they have an list of which modules / games get worked on in which order.  But one of the immutable laws of software development is that things always take twice as long as you expect (even after you take this law into account).

I usually use 2-3 rounds (depending on battery size) against AFVs since the chance of a direct hit is something like 50/50. It's a trade off though between how many targets there are that you might want to use PGM rounds against (if you have more than you need, then wasting a few isn't a big deal) vs firing them one at a time and potentially taking 2-3 times as long to get a round on target - if the AFV isn't going anwhere and you can afford to tie up the spotter and battery for several repeat missions until you get a hit.
 
It's a trade off. in my limited experience, I usually got for a 2-3 round salvo, and haven't yet found myself stuck due to a lack of precision rounds later.
 
I think there may be a difference in accuracy between 120mm and 155mm PGM rounds too, but not sure about that.
 
It is very satisfying to combine drones with PGMs and take out enemy vehicles long before they are even in LoS though
 

If you mean a replay of the whole battle, that is one of the most often requested features and so far hasn't turned up - and probably won't for the forseeable future.
 
If you mean replaying the last minute, that is there in WeGo but not in realtime play. Real time has no possibility to rewind and view stuff again at all.

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
 
So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
 
Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
 
Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

I think Obama has a policy, and it is illustrated by the Russian-Georgian war (which was before Obama was elected, just to avoid confusion). Whether the US would have been prepared to fight to help Georgia or not was a moot point (although I'm pretty sure the US wouldn't have) - the facts at the time was that the US had too many military commitments ongoing to have the forces available to do anything to counter Russia at that point. With large commitments in Iraq and Afghanistan, and a supply train in Afghanistan that depended on Russian co-operation (Pakistan not being the most secure or reliable way of moving supplies into Afghanistan) Russia was basically in a position where the US couldn't do anything to oppose it.
 
So for all the supposed commitments to an ally - Georgia - the US basically sat by and did nothing (a fact that I'm sure the Russians were quite happy to point out to Poland, the Baltic states and other neighbours).
 
Obama's policy was simply to reduce the committed forces so that the US had the spare capacity to respond to threats that actually posed a meaningful threat. Libya and Syria never did. ISIS still doesn't - they have been contained and are being pushed back slowly by the Kurds and Iraqis, neither of which are awe-inspiring military machines. The only things that pose a serious strategic threat to the US are Russia and China. So Obama is simply refusing to get involved in wars that the US can afford to ignore without existential consequences, to be able to contain the threats that matter should the need arise.
 
Whether the diplomatic efforts to back that up have been up to scratch is probably more debatable.

I can't see why it would be changed from CMBN, CMFI or CMRT. BFC had always had a policy of having e.g. regular troops having the same morale behaviour regardless of nationality. I doubt they'd change it for different time frames. A WW2 'regular' level troop is about the same level of training in CM terms as a modern 'regular' troop. It is up to scenario designers (for the most part) to set the experience levels of the troops to reflect the level of training and experience they have. If modern soldiers should all be well trained professionals, they should probably all be veteran or above, where 'typical' WW2 troops might well be green (or worse on some fronts).
 
Also, don't forget that the incoming firepower troops are facing is considerably higher too. A modern platoon, with assault rifles and other goodies can probably put out more fire than a WW2 company, which has a somewhat higher suppressive effect.

Then you really need to change the way you write your posts, because they all come across as petulant whining rather than an attempt to have a constructive discussion.

Just a quick though, but I'd say one of the most important lessons is patience. It's not like most RTS games. Take things slowly. Don't be afraid to have guys sitting around doing nothing for extended periods: the temptation to get them doing something rather than sitting there like lemons will often get them killed. Use small scout teams, let them wait in cover for a few minutes to spot stuff. Have the rest of your troops a minute or two further back, not just 10 yards behind. Make good and plentiful use of artillery and aircraft: in modern war, infantry will account for a tiny amount of casualties you cause. HE explosions do most of the work: artillery, mortars, tank rounds, 30mm guns on troop carrier vehicles. In some ways, your infantry aremostly a screen to stop the enemy infantry getting too close to your main weapons.
 
Shoot the hell out of places before you move your infantry in. Recon by fire and suppression.
 
You might do better playing a few quick battles rather than scenarios. A lot of the players of these games are pretty experienced, and the scenarios tend to be designed to be a challenge for them, which can make them rather formidable for a new players. Try some smaller quick battles at first to get used to the way things work.

Just a quick though, but I'd say one of the most important lessons is patience. It's not like most RTS games. Take things slowly. Don't be afraid to have guys sitting around doing nothing for extended periods: the temptation to get them doing something rather than sitting there like lemons will often get them killed. Use small scout teams, let them wait in cover for a few minutes to spot stuff. Have the rest of your troops a minute or two further back, not just 10 yards behind. Make good and plentiful use of artillery and aircraft: in modern war, infantry will account for a tiny amount of casualties you cause. HE explosions do most of the work: artillery, mortars, tank rounds, 30mm guns on troop carrier vehicles. In some ways, your infantry aremostly a screen to stop the enemy infantry getting too close to your main weapons.
 
Shoot the hell out of places before you move your infantry in. Recon by fire and suppression.
 
You might do better playing a few quick battles rather than scenarios. A lot of the players of these games are pretty experienced, and the scenarios tend to be designed to be a challenge for them, which can make them rather formidable for a new players. Try some smaller quick battles at first to get used to the way things work.