Lethaface

What I did was order a preplanned smokescreen across a part of the front 5 min in (the left half). Let recon spot a bit and supress the spots with tank fire, especially there where the smoke won't provide cover. When smoke screen hit, moved all to front while firing at enemy positions (keep firing! I had tanks on rotation fire 30sec or target light, with APCs firing all the time on light / heavy). Disembark infantry few hundred meter from first objectives. Order artillery on TRPs in front of your attack when smoke barrage lifted. Reinforce the push with the main body. Keep firing at enemy positions, you have a lot of fire power. I mainly took losses with the first tank company on the move to objectives and from dragon teams in foxholes IIRC. Also it's easy to get sloppy after breaking the main line and rush to the exit zone ;-). But I think enough hardware provided to do the job. Spoiler: The ATGMs are of limited use in this scenario imo, by the time the long range can get setup the enemy ATGM vehicles will hopefully be dead or under artillery fires. The short range will need to be setup forward on freshly conquered positions, but probably won't see much use.

Good points, although I do like the .50 on the M113 for infantry support. And in my experience spotting is a bit better for US tanks (even without Thermals), but unbuttoned there's probably not much difference between the non-thermal units. Another thing is the c2 network, I think the US forces can send info through the chain faster, which also helps them on the point of flexibility.

All mod files need to either be in the \mods folder under X:\user\documents\battlefront\combat mission\X\user data\mods\ (Although IIRC the above doesn't work for the steam versions, so the below is probably preferable) OR in the \Z folder in: X:\Program Files\Battlefront\combat mission X\data\Z\ With regards to which files to move from the download: usually ALL files. But sometimes there are options, in which case you either need to choose between them or rename some of them. IIRC with the modpacks by 37mm you can move all files from the download into the Z or mods folder.

Although I also think that certain applications of artillery against AFVs (especially in CMBS) seems underwhelming at times, imo Soviet tactics / doctrine does 'work' or have application in CM. But imo Soviet doctrine / tactics aren't to brainlessly rush into the enemy objective command & conquer style. Imo would the war actually have played out according to CMCWs backstory, I don't think many Soviet commanders will try to push a MRR blindly into a route where the whole recon / forward security element (or both) have become smoldering wrecks. In my experience in CMCW the USA forces shine when used as one would use a scalpel or similar precision tools, which can be neatly used to cut away the strongest enemy assets while bounding forward under overwatch. Scout, smoke, shoot & scoot, suppress, flank, etc.. (aka recon pull). Engage enemy at distance with TOWs etc, cut off their head than move in for the kill. The Soviet forces work better with the 'sledgehammer' approach. Choose a place for a main effort (imo ideally after your recon/forward security got a feel for the composition of enemy defenses), bombard the crap out of any potential strongpoints / defenses threatening your main effort. Setup strong firesupport positions (ATGMs, AGL, etc), isolate the main effort / objective by smoking off other parts of the battle field. Than fully commit to the push, move boldly from fire position to fire position and keep shooting anything vaguely suspicious. Continue shooting for good measure. (aka more like a command push). The sledgehammer approach does usually produce casualties faster. But that's a different issue than the question of whether it 'works' in CM imo. It certainly works better for USSR forces than trying to play them like they are US forces (at least for me). Of course all battles are different but some things are universal, which don't care about doctrines. Don't rush all your tanks into the open if there's a bunch of potent ATGMs / enemy tanks in good positions waiting for your to do exactly that. Whether your playing USSR, USA, modern or WW2; it will remain true. Maybe you can get away with it if it if your rolling with a bunch of M1A2SEP against AT-3 Malyutka's or T-55s. But than you're not getting results because of good tactics anyway.

If there is really no place (some minor elevated position is often enough) from which you can target (suppress) the building with tanks/MGs from a distance, I'd try overwhelming the potential infantry from various sides. I'd go for: * Move fire teams with LMGs sneakily next to the hedge (with hide or 1 AS away from hedge), on positions facing windows and doors in the buildings. Like others mentioned, ideally achieving crossfires. * Move assault teams next to the hedge facing blindspots in the buildings. At X, unhide / move to the fire teams and start suppressing while the assault teams move to the blindside of the building. A short delay for the assault teams can allow for suppression to build before they move out. Before moving into the building and dropping suppressive fire, you can move the assault teams to a spot next to the building which allows to target the inside. Pause them there fore ~15 seconds with a target briefly command. They'll chuck grenades in as well. If both buildings have enemies in them, it will be more difficult to achieve without casualties. But close quarters combat is deadly so that's to be factored in.

I think all the scout vehicles (Fenneks) have reloads for the Gill, but the AT formation also has the launcher teams. So indeed some formations have the Fennek but don't have the AT role and no launchers.

Might be something with windows 11? ther than that I'm also on a 3080 and 1440p (Win10) and 1.03 runs without issue.

Move (sneaky) infantry scout teams / FO's to good observation positions and scout their positions. Allow this information to be shared through the c2 network. Stalk the assets and or try to shoot & scoot them with your own vehicles from good positions. Use smoke to conceal movement of vehicles into better position against the ATGMs.

Not sure if it's a bug but my T-62 (1972) seem to favor using HEAT rounds over APFSDS against M60s at 1000-1500. The few times they actually used APFSDS they'd hit most of the time (and do damage), while they have issue getting those HEAT rounds on target. At least until now, they didn't have much ranging opportunities in this game. But to me it seemed (in this anecdote) like they should use the APFSDS: More ammo, more chance of actually hitting something, decent chance of penetrating/partial pen.

Update, I googled and found an old quote how to do it. So first update your game, go back to a save at the end of a battle (or play to the end). Make sure you end the battle and save the file in between. Than go to campaigns and try to load it using the shift key. I did use it once or twice years ago. But I guess there's no guarantees it will work.

AFAIK you can upgrade a campaign game, perhaps between scenario's? It used to be possible but I forgot how.

I like Bahasa Melayu: they use 'dia' for he/she. And there's no past/present/future tense. It's just 'I go to supermarket yesterday/today/tomorrow'. Context will make everything clear.

I think the username is arbitrary, you doublechecked your password? I use the same password as the account on slitherine website and that works for me.

I think you are trying to register, just click on ok. I tried same before

It could be nice / interesting to have a choice for predelagated priority for on call fires available, next to what we have available now (which I presume isn't predelageted since the long call in times). Could just be a question of re-designation of existing assets, with an extra cost of purchase points (and or rarity points) slapped onto the artillery formation. Organic artillery inside a taskforce would be always 'predelagated'. That would allow for scenario's or QBs to either use the normal non-predelagated batteries mainly as preliminary strikes (from the fireplan) or accept delays for 'deviations', while also allowing for quicker fire support at a 'significant' cost (QB) or for scenario's / campaigns: allowing specific predelagated usecases as a flavor. At least to me it seems that 'predelegated authority for on call fires' should be a possibility for Red in CMCW and especially CMBS, given the modernization and BTG doctrine/theory.

All BFC purchasers can also get the Steam version, that's how I got it anyway. And indeed the CW Bradley isn't the armored-up monster like modern variants, although imo it is a game changer for the US forces in CW. That is, IF it's on the field (which it isn't often).

They can.

Yeah the carry capacity certainly has value. Although having a 4th Bradley does as well :). If you're looking for cheap carry capacity a Bradley wouldn't be my first choice. Anyway one explanation could be that points distribution/formula whatever is being used, differs per side. Also I don't think this is a big issue whatsoever, the point difference being small and it's not like the BMP-2 is an alternative to the Bradley or vice versa. Let alone the massive rarity points so it won't show up in numbers unless people playing without rarity at all.

Mission 3 was my favourite as well. It really shows the capabilities of CMBS (and Russian army) imo.

Having played quite a number of games in fog last year, I can confirm that it certainly did make a big difference on spotting and therefore the distance at which firefights erupt (CMFB and CMFI games IIRC). Makes for some interesting dynamics.

Nice, really enjoyed playing that campaign (long time ago though). I think the 3rd mission was very interesting as well, featuring a river crossing. Don't want to post spoilers any though.

Purchase points are only described as purchase points in the manual. But on forum / elsewhere I've always seen them explained as an approximation of the 'combat power' of a unit. Rarity points are addressed in the manual: "Rarity - Rarity determines the degree real life historical availability factors into unit purchases. The choices are Strict, Standard, Loose, or None. See the Purchase Forces section later in this chapter for details about the Rarity purchase system." "The amount of uncommon units allowed for purchasing can be restricted if desired. “Strict” keeps unit purchases almost exclusively to common units, “None” has no restrictions at all. “Standard” approximates actual availability for that particular month, “Loose” is more generous than that."

More even compared to CMSF2/CMBS yes. But the Bradley will still have BMP-2 for breakfast and lunch, at least in the one game I played with them. Better optics, FLIR, smoke which the enemy can't see through but the Bradley can, ITOW and a 25mm gun which can go through the BMP-2 with ease. Now the BMP-2 30mm probably wont much issue punching holes in the Bradley, nor does it's ATGM. But on a 1v1 basis it will lose the majority of duels imo. Granted I haven't done any representative tests but if I'd had to hazard a guess it will be closer to 100% than to 50%. The BMP-2 can carry 8 men, although one of those is the vehicle commander (leaving 2 crew), while the Bradley has a dedicated vehicle commander and 3 crew total. So that's either 1 or 2 men difference, depending on how you count. Overall it probably won't have much impact on QBs, unless rarity is fully off (given the Bradley costs 2000 rarity points even in 1982). But still it just looked odd in my eyes seeing the Bradley cheaper than the BMP-2.

Adding: The M1 Abrams costs 494 points, which is significantly more than a T-80B. Which is fair imo, considering it's combat power. It would be strange if the M1 would be cheaper than the T-80B but had a rarity cost offset in place to mitigate that.

That would indeed mitigate the impact of any potential pricing imparity. However taken at face value I'd value the capability of the Bradley (even the 1980 version, not the CMSF2/CMBS versions) much higher than a BMP-2, so it is strange in my opinion that they are priced similar or the Bradley a bit cheaper even. The rarity costs should govern the rarity of a vehicle, not points which reflect the combat power of an asset.