apd1004

If CMBS is just the first step towards a modern-era "construction set", I don't see how you can possibly omit USMC or other NATO countries. There are so many scenario possibilities in and around the Black Sea region besides just the Ukraine that to OMIT USMC and NATO would be overlooking a huge resource for scenario builders.
 
I have never owned CMSF nor do I plan on purchasing it. It came out what, 7 or 8 years ago? So to say "they're already in CMSF" is not a valid argument for others like me who are in the same situation. 

I never played Shock Force so the more NATO the better.

I would love to see CMBS become more of a toolbox for modern scenarios.  

Company XO proves he is no slouch when it comes to tank gunnery. It was really the gunner but the LT will take credit no doubt.
Capture5 by apd1004, on Flickr
 
First round hit at 2708m, the longest one I've seen so far. Of course the target was a 9P157-2 so hit=kill, but it's still a dangerous threat.
 
Capture6 by apd1004, on Flickr

This is a CMx2 thing and I had hoped it would get better over time, but sometime the Infantry Tac AI is so frustrating it pulls my hair out.
 
I been a player and holder of CM games from CMx1 to now my latest Black Sea.
 
I absolutely love the vehicle TAC AI even when I do not like what the crew does, it still makes sense, the vehicle become endangered and throws itself into reverse only to get hit from a previous spotted At weapon, still perfectly understandable.
 
But close combat Infantry Tac AI is what I feel lets the game down in the biggest way, I will explain some scenario and what I see and what i would prefer to see.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE:Running, I am not sure if it is the animation or they are so very slow but when guys a running they seem to be doing it on ICE, as in lots of movement but very little forward progress, 9 time out of ten they are all on top of each other so it easy for the enemy to get multiple kills. Now the speed may be due to the amount of weight they are carrying but the speed is exactly the same in WW2 where the in very little weight factor.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: What I rather see, is they move in pairs and individuals, with a more open gap between the soldiers, this way they all do not get slaughter like sheep. This could be an extra command like sprint, to get across streets, without loosing a whole 4 man team, because they are all snails without a care when moving.
 
-------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Assaulting from a breached corner into a house. To do this you need your 8 man squad to Quick to the breech and then the other team to runs forward into the house, this normal exposed the first team to a hail of fire as the moving into an open area (rubbled wall) which gets them killed then the team racing in like lemming charge in without fire support, goo by 8 man to to a single person with an 8 AK or SMG.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: You can have a number of the team stack on the corner of the wall and support by fire, this has them less exposed, the assault team then breeches.
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: The Breaching team in a house assault get slaughtered come in the front door, The 4 man team act stupidly regardless the distance the team is away from the door, they pile in to there death like lemmings. The enemy just needs to be a single automatic weapon guy to take down a full team. The assault team does not halt its attack, does not toss a grenade in, does not do anything but run and die. I would just like to say I hate every stuid the tac Ai does, but I am giving one example above.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION:
The assault team stacks at the door, so we do not have 4 separate entries spread over 10 secs. If the team suspects enemy it toss in a grenade before entry, it enters in the door the first few metres in a rush then halts and frees at the enemy it does not run all the way to the end of the house to turn around and come back to first at the enemy at the front door. It the sweeps as a team through the house and stops an fire as a team at contact.
 
-----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUE: Move and then in contact. I prefer to use move sometimes instead of hunt cause I find hunt they stopping all the time on non valid threats that not firing at them, but using move in woods is a pain. If they get ambushed in the wood, the player continues to run and get slaughtered even if it running into the fire.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: If the fire is come from the front, then the move is cancelled and the TAC AI stops and returns fire, before they have to lose a man in the process and start cowering.
 
----------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Cowering, I understand cowering makes sense, but I see cowering out in the open, I seen a whole team cower in the woods, and continually get suppress and eventually killed cause they will not even attempt to return fire. This frustrates me more then anything.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Blind firing, not to hit the enemy but to suppress back to gain a little morale back, throwing grenades, throwing smoke if they have them. crawling away out of range. I rather this then see each individual solider die one after the other cause they will not do anything but cower.
 
 
---------------------------
 
PERCEIVED ISSUES: Hunt in single file, move in single file. All movement is is single file. This allows  for longer time to get set for contact and normally means all you guys end up cowering and picked off one by one.
 
PERCEIVED SOLUTION: Hunt when moving through woods should be in arrowhead or line formation, this would allow return fire on contact, right now it contact and then cower cause they need to run forward and the firing at the pint guy suppresses the rear guys, the time that my guys normally do better is when i am shot from the side, which they happen to be in a line formation.
 
--------------------------
 
 
 
 
 
There is many more bugbears I have of the Infantry TAC AI, but these are my major ones, and the reason I find this game frustrating. I know there is certain things I could be doing better and I am sure a lot of people will come to the defence I the TAC AI . I am not saying it is super bad, just these things could be improved on. Right now infantry without a huge amount of micro management on building assaults or any assault in general take what I would consider unnecessary losses due to it stupidity, where a normal human would do something different. I would love to see BF spend so more time on this front, rather then more vehicles etc. 

By doctrine at least in the modern US Army, you will find Lieutenants leading platoons, Captains leading companies, and Lieutenant Colonels leading battalions. You can go one down with rank if you have the Executive Officer in charge of a company or battalion, or in a platoon you might see a Sergeant First Class leading if they don't have enough officers.You will find them leading from the front up to battalion level, although you probably wouldn't see the company commander or battalion commander running point in an assault. They would be co-located with one of the elements (probably not an assault or breaching element in most cases) and that would be specified in the operations order.
 
Unless you are going to include battalion or brigade command post elements & staffs in a scenario, you probably won't see a lot of Majors leading units unless the XO is in charge of a battalion or a new battalion commander Major hasn't been promoted to LTC yet. Most of your staff guys at the battalion level are Captains with a Major or senior Captain as an operations officer, and at the brigade level staff you have a lot more Majors and now some Lieutenant Colonels on the staff. It's not that staff guys are cowards any more than anyone else can be a coward, it's just not their job to be out "in a foxhole". If I'm a battalion or brigade commander, I want my logistics officer back in the TOC getting me more ammo, not out in a foxhole with a rifle.
 
Most armies today have similar structure, although it varies by army to the level of initiative encouraged at each level. Most western all-volunteer armies encourage leadership initiative at the lowest level and their training and doctrine embrace that concept. Some former Warsaw Pact armies are working towards that goal. I spent a year with the Hungarian Defense Forces in Afghanistan, and I can tell you I was very surprised at the fact that their NCO's weren't used to having a voice when it came to operations. They were used to doing what they were told by their officers and were not used to taking charge of tactical situations. They were very good soldiers, it just wasn't in their doctrine or training for young NCO's to take charge if the lieutenant was there.

By doctrine at least in the modern US Army, you will find Lieutenants leading platoons, Captains leading companies, and Lieutenant Colonels leading battalions. You can go one down with rank if you have the Executive Officer in charge of a company or battalion, or in a platoon you might see a Sergeant First Class leading if they don't have enough officers.You will find them leading from the front up to battalion level, although you probably wouldn't see the company commander or battalion commander running point in an assault. They would be co-located with one of the elements (probably not an assault or breaching element in most cases) and that would be specified in the operations order.
 
Unless you are going to include battalion or brigade command post elements & staffs in a scenario, you probably won't see a lot of Majors leading units unless the XO is in charge of a battalion or a new battalion commander Major hasn't been promoted to LTC yet. Most of your staff guys at the battalion level are Captains with a Major or senior Captain as an operations officer, and at the brigade level staff you have a lot more Majors and now some Lieutenant Colonels on the staff. It's not that staff guys are cowards any more than anyone else can be a coward, it's just not their job to be out "in a foxhole". If I'm a battalion or brigade commander, I want my logistics officer back in the TOC getting me more ammo, not out in a foxhole with a rifle.
 
Most armies today have similar structure, although it varies by army to the level of initiative encouraged at each level. Most western all-volunteer armies encourage leadership initiative at the lowest level and their training and doctrine embrace that concept. Some former Warsaw Pact armies are working towards that goal. I spent a year with the Hungarian Defense Forces in Afghanistan, and I can tell you I was very surprised at the fact that their NCO's weren't used to having a voice when it came to operations. They were used to doing what they were told by their officers and were not used to taking charge of tactical situations. They were very good soldiers, it just wasn't in their doctrine or training for young NCO's to take charge if the lieutenant was there.

By doctrine at least in the modern US Army, you will find Lieutenants leading platoons, Captains leading companies, and Lieutenant Colonels leading battalions. You can go one down with rank if you have the Executive Officer in charge of a company or battalion, or in a platoon you might see a Sergeant First Class leading if they don't have enough officers.You will find them leading from the front up to battalion level, although you probably wouldn't see the company commander or battalion commander running point in an assault. They would be co-located with one of the elements (probably not an assault or breaching element in most cases) and that would be specified in the operations order.
 
Unless you are going to include battalion or brigade command post elements & staffs in a scenario, you probably won't see a lot of Majors leading units unless the XO is in charge of a battalion or a new battalion commander Major hasn't been promoted to LTC yet. Most of your staff guys at the battalion level are Captains with a Major or senior Captain as an operations officer, and at the brigade level staff you have a lot more Majors and now some Lieutenant Colonels on the staff. It's not that staff guys are cowards any more than anyone else can be a coward, it's just not their job to be out "in a foxhole". If I'm a battalion or brigade commander, I want my logistics officer back in the TOC getting me more ammo, not out in a foxhole with a rifle.
 
Most armies today have similar structure, although it varies by army to the level of initiative encouraged at each level. Most western all-volunteer armies encourage leadership initiative at the lowest level and their training and doctrine embrace that concept. Some former Warsaw Pact armies are working towards that goal. I spent a year with the Hungarian Defense Forces in Afghanistan, and I can tell you I was very surprised at the fact that their NCO's weren't used to having a voice when it came to operations. They were used to doing what they were told by their officers and were not used to taking charge of tactical situations. They were very good soldiers, it just wasn't in their doctrine or training for young NCO's to take charge if the lieutenant was there.