zmoney

After a full year and a half I've finally finished CMBN's original Road to Montebourg campaign. Only took me a decade to get round to it after buying CMBN!

Here's the full playlist, there should be a link in the top right of the embed you can use to swap between missions:

MOUT operations in CMx2 titles have always been pretty bloody if not executed without exceptional care. I can not make a statement regarding your specific situation, but what i ve observed in the couple of years playing CMx2 is that clearing a building occupied by hostile forces is
Best avoided if possible If avoiding clearing the building is impossible, destroy the building or its occupants using heavy fire power (tanks, aircraft artillery, what ever you' ve got). If destroying the building or it's occupants using heavy fire power is not possible, prepare it for infantry clearing by first spending a couple of turns suppressing it's occupants using at least a 3:1 force ratio and the target or target light command. RPGs and the like are wonderful tools for convincing an enemy in a building to leave it. After preparing the building for assault, keep suppressing it with a target-light command and a 2:1 force ratio an send a 1:1 force ratio troop into the building, carefully. Use the pause command and suppress each room with the assault element using target-briefly for at least 10 seconds before entering (this also leads to some grenade throwing, etc). If possible, send the assault element into the building using demo charges by blowing in a wall that has no windows and from the top most floor possible (because hand grenades work best if thrown from an upper to a lower floor). If heavy resistance is encountered in a room, retreat and try to destroy or at least suppress the enemy using your over-watch element from the outside. Using above listed steps, MOUT against an inferior force as the Syrians in CMSF2 can usually be done relative casualty free. Fighting an equal enemy such as the Russians in CMBS, on the other hand, will always cause you some losses, there is no way around it. Just accept it and keep pushing forward towards your mission objectives.

This is me. Every time I fire it up I play for a while then one of the bugs rears it’s ugly head and I get disappointed. This is the reason I won’t buy Rome to Victory or the latest west front game, nor will I buy anything else until they release a patch to fix the few super frustrating bugs in an otherwise amazing game. Seriously it’s like two or three bugs that are keeping me on the sidelines.

This is me. Every time I fire it up I play for a while then one of the bugs rears it’s ugly head and I get disappointed. This is the reason I won’t buy Rome to Victory or the latest west front game, nor will I buy anything else until they release a patch to fix the few super frustrating bugs in an otherwise amazing game. Seriously it’s like two or three bugs that are keeping me on the sidelines.

Yup, pretty much the same reason I haven't bought CMSF2 or anything else new.  I'd be deeply depressed trying to replay JOKER THREE with Marines constantly Keystone Kopsing around the complex streetscapes of Ramadi. When fellow realism junkies like @RockinHarry or @Kaunitz say it's safe to break 3.0 quarantine, I will. Not before then.
Men under fire, even panicked, should get their arses down and stay put *by default*, unless they're in the middle of a runway or something. I'd sooner see them 'grow' some microterrain not previously rendered, or even sink into the terrain mesh to reflect just how good humans are at at putting hard objects between themselves and incoming hot metal.

Well, while there´s no really safe way to avoid some the TacAI´s pathing oddities (seperated pixelsoldiers, entering or exiting wrong doors etc), there´s a partial workaround for (human player) infantry retreating (evading) to unpleasant locations like towards enemy and such. I´d explained in more detail here ( @LongLeftFlank you know already  )
I can tell this method made some missions that I´d figured more or less unplayable in V4 CMBN/CMFB, becoming playable again. In many circumstances I found preventing my (defending) units to evade by use of instant pause command (or putting pause at an end waypoint - hitting P-key 10 times) decisive. I don´t want missing the new V4 scripting features, but people just playing (not designing) likely care less about them.

I agree 100% I made the decision after CM SF2 about not buying a single Battlefront product untill they show some care about the reported issues and fix them or at least show some intention with a patch,. They seem to have time to post daily on Off Topic forum it seems they don´t to make a single post on here or the reported tank accuracy bug. This atitude leads me to move my money somewhere else and it is sad to say cause I own lot of Battlefront games and modules.

This is me. Every time I fire it up I play for a while then one of the bugs rears it’s ugly head and I get disappointed. This is the reason I won’t buy Rome to Victory or the latest west front game, nor will I buy anything else until they release a patch to fix the few super frustrating bugs in an otherwise amazing game. Seriously it’s like two or three bugs that are keeping me on the sidelines.

I, personally, would be very careful about assuming the bug will be fixed anytime soon. It took the company almost 2 years to fix the HE bug from 3.0, and all that fix did was introduce this new (now too old) hedgerow bug. Or maybe both bugs are different manifestations of some singular root cause. Who knows. The point is, over the last 4-5 years BFC has been in no apparent hurry to fix what are often times game-breaking bugs.
The HE bug... the hedgerow bug... the bridge bug... the team-members-staying-behind bug... the halftrack-gunner / tank commander 'issue' (which I don't think can properly be called a bug, but is still pretty immersion-wrecking)... unbelievably stupid spotting anomalies (like the one discussed in rocketman's current thread)... and there are other issues I'm forgetting, too, I'm sure. Most of them, sadly, still exist, and that's despite literal years of discussion about them on this form.
I've been playing CM a little more lately, after a much needed hiatus, and all I can say is... yeah, I'm remembering why I needed to put the game down for awhile. It's very disappointing. Hopefully BFC can either get it together and fix these kinds of things, or just call it a day with CMx2 and move on to CMx3.

I recently had a rage quit associated with the infantry movement bug. I had a squad of inf move into a building 30 ft away that was occupied by friendly troops. Instead of running straight through the back door they decided to run around the building to the front, and since this wasn’t enough to take casualties they decided to keep running in a big circular pattern before trying to run back towards the front door and all got mowed down. Also in just about every mission I play regardless of which CM title I am playing there is the odd bug where one member of the team becomes detached and just sits in one spot not following the rest of the squad.
 
I seem to remember reading in one of these many infantry bug threads that this issue was resolved like a year ago but BFC doesn’t release small patches. I’d be willing to pay $10 for the patch so BFC if you’re listening hit me up because this is a very annoying bug especially if there is already a fix for it.

Leaders in every war if leading from the front always have higher casualty rates. Not sure it is modeled in game though.
 
For me I have not noticed this. Maybe it seems like they are dying more because you tend to notice those casualties more.

Or at the very least, the Stryker engineering vehicle already in the game should have a mine-clearing dozer blade, LIKE IT DOES IN REAL LIFE.

You could even use the existing mine clearance command from the sherman crab, just without the chain flails.
It can't be that difficult, can it?

In July 2017 I did some experiments to determine the effects of closed vs. open vehicle hatches when horizontally sharing information. Tested in CMFI v2.0 Engine 4.  There is a topic on it buried somewhere in the forum.  Below were my observations at the time (I think this is still accurate). 
Infantry may horizontally share information with a buttoned tank when within 32 meters.
Two armor vehicles that are both unbuttoned may horizontally share info. when within 32 meters.
When the reporting armored vehicle is buttoned it must be within 8 meters of both armor and infantry to horizontally share (report) information.    
The reporting unit needs to be unbuttoned to horizontally share (report) information at 32 meters.
A buttoned unit will not share information unless it is within approximately 8 meters.
Information sharing is one-way if the units are approximately 9 to 32 meters apart and one is buttoned. The unbuttoned will share the buttoned will not.     
 
Before a mission check the chain of command.  If there are attached units that are not in the C2 chain handle this matter through liaisons and/or the grouping of appropriate HQ teams in the same TOC.   
For the most reliable horizontal information sharing place units adjacent to each other with all vehicles Opened.
 

NATO, but only because it's nice to see yourself on the big screen. 🇨🇦

Could it even be a usable unit.....Maybe they reused the mechanics underlying the Taxi from CM:SF? 

I don't have any articles off hand but from my experience:

Graviteam tactics series:

- Tactical battles require less micro from the player

Troops are more spread out and you have less control over them. Preventing you from microing units a ton. You tend towards giving sweeping orders and then watching the platoons carry it out. There isn't a ton for you to do during an assault - most of your focus is on getting people in the right place. Once your infantry are moving across the map its largely too late to do much.

For example, in Graviteam its on you to get the assault platoons in position, setup the artillery, postion reserves, and support by fire positions. but once you hit the "go" button you aren't going to be telling squad 1 to break off an anti-tank team to move ~50 meters through a field to engage an enemy tank.
- Battles feel more authentic

If you read any number of AAR or personal accounts from veteran you'll read a lot of stuff that Graviteam seems to get right. The biggest one for me is that you will repeatedly read about armor advancing even after their infantry support has been pinned down. This rarely happens in CM (to the player) but in Graviteam you'll see stuff like this all the time.

In CM the player has a ton of control, this can be good, but can also create instances where battles feel too put together. Graviteam does a better job of making battles messy.

- Good campaign system

The campaign system is a strategic map of the battle area where tactical fights are generated by the movements of units on the strategic map. Its fantastic and adds a lot of replaybility to the series. This is the one area where it beats Combat Mission hands down. You are dealing with postioning of units over a period of hours, resupply, recovery of damaged vehicles, etc... I recently had a very interesting Graviteam Tactics game where I managed to win by sacrificing a tank platoon to draw the German Heavy tank unit (Tigers) into a strategic trap.
- You can get more breadth at a lower price

Graviteam mostly focuses on the Eastern front, but you can find Afghan War, Iran-Iraq, Chinese/Soviet Border War, and various African conflicts. These are all relatively inexpensive. This is something I like a lot as they are conflicts that you rarely (essentially never) see simmed and Graviteam does them.

CM:

- More Micro

In CM you can find yourself microing a platoon of infantry and 3 Bradleys to surround a compound that holds 7 Insurgents. And that will be interesting. This makes CM a much better small unit and urban combat game.

I just played a battle in CM where I knocked down a section of wall to give a T-72 a keyhole position to kill an Abrams. That isn't something you could do in Graviteam at all.

- User designed scenarios

While the campaign system in Graviteam is better, the standalone scenarios and the few "story" campaigns in CM are excellent and Graviteam doesn't have anything like it. There are a ton of them and there are quite a few fantastic ones that really let peoples imagination shine.

- More WW2 and modern content

if you want to spend the money CM covers more ground both in WW2 and in Modern.


-----

Generally I play them both.

I play Combat Mission when I;'m interested in heavy micro or a good standalone battle. While I play Graviteam when I'm looking for a week long campaign or some weird mid-century conflict. They both play very differently and its hard to compare them directly.

josey Wales has a decent video:
 

Assault on Werbomont

The Kampfgruppe is now in the position to take North Werbomont, and then, cut off the exit of the American airborne. This will allow for a clear path to the river, Meuse, which, when taken, will drive a wedge between the Americans and the British. The American paratroopers are dug-in, and expecting to ambush the Kampfgruppe, entering the town.

The majority of the fighting will have to be left to the Panther gruppe. The SS and Fallschirmjager are under strength, and must be conserved for clearing duties -- for which they are absolutely necessary. The Americans' plan is now to bleed, and slow down the Kampfgruppe, before they reach the exit.


The Kampfgruppe's new vehicles are proving their worth on the battlefield. The autocannon on the Hanomag is enough to seriously suppress the American garrison.


As the superior fire power of the Kampfgruppe's vehicles riddle the American strong points with explosive fire --  whileAmerican heavy artillery is being called in.

BAM! BAM! BAM!
It is zeroing in. The rounds are getting closer and closer. The Fallschimjager must advance, or get caught under a hail of shells.

The American paratroopers, spring from windows and doorways -- firing wildly at tanks and infantry alike!

The Kampfgruppe's superior firepower is suppressing the defenders. However, the cowboys remain stubborn. Now, the advance is limited to moving house-to-house.


Time is running out. Shells are starting to fall. The Panther gruppe and the Fallschirmjager must strike at the Exit now.


Meanwhile a heavy weapons company is stealthily deployed on the flank of Central Werbomont, under the cover of stealth. Support Hanomags and an HMG platoon will support the flanking maneuver, once the exit has been taken.

While North Werbomont was lightly defended, there is a concentration of American paratroopers protecting Werbomont exit. These men are fighting to the last man, taking pot shots at advancing infantry as Panthers hose them down with MGs.


BANG!
ACHTUNG! American heavy anti-tank guns hidden behind the exit have opened fire! They have the power to obliterate a Panther with a single shot, at this range. The infantry must handle this one.


BANG!
American gunners reload their AT guns with High Explosive, as the Fallschimjager closes in on them. The 3-inch HE is devastating -- the advance is pinned!


Holding back the Panthers was a mistake. They are needed to take care of these heavy guns!

The second phase of the operation is a success. North Werbomont is fully under the Reich, once more. However, the Exit is putting up a stiff resistance. The American artillery will no doubt, if the Kampfgruppe finds itself stuck in North Werbomont. The assault must continue, even in the face of heavy casualties!

I've only seen three of them so far this go-round and I am loving the sort of combat these maps dish out. A mix of long range gunnery duels and close in urban fighting. But so far the urban isn't too dense for me. A perfect mix.
In order to deflect attention from the fact I thought one of my squads carried 30 panzerfaust... I'll turn this in to a thread about Blunting the Spear. Spoliers to follow.
First though, I actually paid attention and answered my own question. There are both panzerfaust model 30 (designated by the 30) and 30k (designated by the K) in this mission. You all know that already.
I finished the second mission, and because time ran over, I was able to capture all objectives. Scored a minor victory. I saw that the Soviets scored 300 points for two terrain objectives which were not labeled on the map and 400 points for Friendly. What is that, they stayed above their casualty threshold, or something else? No worries, just curious to how it's scored.
The Russian aircraft made a return right as time ran out and went nuts. First it attacked one of the knocked out (and burning) Russian tanks. Then it came back to strike a couple of my Mark IVs, causing a few casualties, several penetrations, and the tanks were abandoned. But because it went to overtime I was able to remount the crews. If I had run out of time, would these tanks (abandoned but with surviving crews) have carried over as part of the core force?
 
That aircraft also attacked my pioneer platoon, heretofore uncommitted in the campaign and mounted in tracks under the cover of trees way at the back of the map. That was a tough one to take
I lost two Mark IVs in this battle (I mean permanently considering the re-mounts), and both were knocked out by this well-positioned T-34/85. Clearly though we got our revenge. I committed the mass of my armor on the right, and you see the result. There are two more penetrations on the left turret from a flanking Mark IV who also got a spot. All hits were during the same WEGO segment and brutal it was.
 

 
And a cool shot which I would caption with "You ain't kidding"
 

We have 5 T-84 mod.2001 slightly upgraded in 2018. As already said Sgt.Squaterhead T-84 is not the same as BM Oplot (old name T-84M) mod.2008, which present in the game.
T-72 entered in service again since the end 2014. Now models T-72B and T-72AV in service, mostly in new-formed motorized infantry brigades, in one mountain assault brigade and in several mech.brigades.
T-64BV still like main battle tank (also several dozens BM Bulat). Since 2018 about 100 T-64BV upgraded to T-64BV mod.2017 (thermal sight sight, Nozh ERA, digital radio, GPS). T-64 of all versions are on armament of tank brigades and most of mech.brigades.
T-80BV uses by air assault brigades and marines brigades (but marines use some quantity of T-64BV yet).

INVERTED KILLSACK
Moments after the Bradley engages the single ATGM team on Hill 113, a worst case scenario develops. An entire company of T-72AV tanks appear along the ridgeline of Hill 113. My entire force suddenly finds itself in a killsack. Most of my assets are deployed. The infantry are in the process of advancing on and clearing objectives, with their Bradley’s sitting in overwatch positions. Further, most of my tanks are either engaged at point blank range with the remains of the T-72 company on the reverse slope, with their sides and rear facing Hill 113. I only have a handful of tanks in overwatch observing the direction of Hill 113.

This is an extremely dangerous situation. The potential exists here for OpFor to inflict severe casualties on my force in a very short amount of time, and all of this can occur without me being able to properly react. In short, it could all be over for Task Force Miller.

The drama kicks off immediately. CPT Miller’s 66 tank, part of the handful of tanks on overwatch of Hill 113, is fired on by one of the enemy T-72s. A half second later, the 66 tank engages the same T-72 that fired at it. The sabot from the T-72 crashes into the lower glacis plate of the 66 tank, but is defeated.

The T-72 is not so lucky. The sabot from the 66 tank hits and penetrates its target, sending the sabot through the chin of the turret and out the back, detonating the ammo stored in the turret on its way through.
What follows is another short, violent tank duel. The other tanks in overwatch, including 2 tanks on the MSR, engage the threat on Hill 113. Bradley’s, including the infantry company commanders track, engage with TOW missiles. Sabot rounds and ATGMs (TOW’s from the Bradleys, AT-11s from the T-72s, and AT-5a’s from a few BMP-2s) zip past each other.

Despite the excellent gunnery of my tanks and Bradley’s, not all shots find their targets. The T-72s are firing from behind a berm at an elevation advantage, making them tough targets to hit. A number of sabot rounds and TOW missiles miss, and some that hit are defeated by the combined armor and angling of the T-72s.

Casualties are suffered on both sides. I quickly lose an Abrams when an enemy AT-11 tank fired ATGM slams into the top turret of one of my Abrams as it tries to orient itself towards the new threat. The ATGM punches through the soft top turret armor and explodes inside, killing the entire crew.

A moment later, one of the tanks engaged in a knife fight with the enemy T-72s in the reverse slope killsack takes multiple hits to the rear of its turret. It too is quickly destroyed, taking its entire crew with it.

Bradley’s from 3rd platoon in overwatch of their infantry currently clearing the woods of NAI 1 are hit next. One enemy sabot round destroys 2 of them, punching clean through the first Brad and into the second. If there is a silver lining to this, it is that the infantry was already dismounted.

My tanks and Bradley’s quickly increase their return fire, and soon gain fire superiority. A flurry of killing blows follows, and within the next 20 seconds, most of the OpFor T-72 company on Hill 113 has been smashed.

This engagement occurred over the course of roughly 50 seconds. I had no chance to give new orders based on the new threat. All I could do was watch. Luckily for me, I had maintained decent overwatch positions with my reserve tanks, and many of my Bradley’s were in positions that granted them some level of concealment to the threat. The rest all came down to the gunnery skill of my crews and, in the case of my Abrams, their excellent armor that allowed them to survive frontal hits.
This could have been disastrous for my forces. If I had not maintained good overwatch, I could have been stuck waiting an entire minute to react to the new threat on Hill 113. With modern weapons and targeting, as well as it being an entire company of enemy tanks, a minute would have been more than enough time for the T-72s to destroy/cripple most of my soft/vulnerable assets caught in the open. Remember, if I lose more than 30% of my force, I lose the battle.
What saved me from defeat has more to do with basic tactical fundamentals and less to do with equipment or technology (though equipment and technology certainly helps). All elements, while moving through the open, positioned in the open, or overwatching smaller assets like infantry, were in turn being covered themselves. Further, I knew Hill 113 was key terrain based on its near dominating sightlines covering the part of the map my Task Force has to initially deploy across. If I had not had my rearmost tanks oriented towards Hill 113 overwatching the rest of my Task Force, the T-72 attack could have been a complete disaster for me. Additionally, if my opponent had committed his two tank companies at the same time (the company in the reverse slope position, and the company up on Hill 113) he could have overwhelmed my vehicles by catching me in a deadly crossfire. 20 T-72 tanks, firing at me from different directions, elevations, and distances likely would have caused much more damage to my forces.
For now, I’ve managed to keep my Task Force intact. However, these killsack engagements are a sobering reminder of how quickly I can lose my command, and how crucial basic tactical fundamentals are regardless of weapons and technology.

Not trying to take anything away from other peoples post but thought I would post my little project.
I have finished working on the CMBS vehicles and just finished working on the spare tires and antennas for CMSF2. Here is a screenshot. Will start to add gear to the vehicles.

 

The Lt. find himself in a tough spot.

for instance the manuel says that regs are trained but have little combat experience...how this measures in the game BF has that kinda thing classified.      There are a lot of green troops in the ww2 titles because imo those troops represent fresh replacements or rear erea personnel to replace heavy casusalties sustained. the allies just did not have that many full strength regiments with reliable troops as the war progressed. 

That can kind of be done manually, with trickery in the core units file, but it only really works reliably for a single small unit.....A narrative campaign about a single platoon might be doable and TBH CM:A would probably be the best game to do it with as it has a fourteen year calendar!
PS - This is kind of what I'm doing with Abdul Gul's war.....I'm not increasing the various units' experience, but characters Abdul Gul knows or encounter along his journey may later show up as permanent (assuming the player doesn't get them killed) members of his band (and the larger Mujahideen organization surrounding it).  Mohammed, Abdul Gul's son, is a teenage Spy unit in the very first scenario, but has the potential to return as a Mujahideen commander later in the story, according to the players choices.

Given that campaigns can be thought of as taking place over several months (and there could well have been additional battles between the ones depicted in a campaign) it would be nice in CM3 to have the option a campaign designer of enabling units to gain experience over several battles.  
It would add to the gameplay fun to have at least some units go from a low to a higher experience level as a result of several battles and become the ones to watch and/or give the toughest assignments to.