Combatintman

Ok - another go at this argument:- For the sake of heresy I am working on the assumption that Battlefront implements the core units idea ... now read on. Lets say that your initial campaign order says you are TF Whatever which is based on 1/32 Inf. In the opening brief of the campaign you get told that this is pretty much your settled TASKORG for the whole campaign (for simplicity I'm ignoring guns and engineers here) You have: A/1/32 Inf B/1/32 Inf C/2/2 Armor Mission 1 TASKORG and startstates: A/1/32 Inf (100%) B/1/32 Inf (100%) C/2/2 Armor (100%) End of mission 1 Combat Effectiveness (because you've looked after them (core units after all) is as follows) A/1/32 Inf (89%) B/1/32 Inf (92%) C/2/2 Armor (95%) Mission 2: For Mission 2 you get told that A/1/32 Inf is on another mission somewhere else. B/1/32 Inf (start state 95% - some casualty replacement) C/2/2 Armor (start state 98% - some casualty replacement) End of mission 2 Combat Effectiveness (because you've looked after them (core units after all) is as follows) B/1/32 Inf (88%) C/2/2 Armor (91%) Mission 3: Back to the original TASKORG A/1/32 Inf B/1/32 Inf C/2/2 Armor Start state as follows: A/1/32 Inf (start state 80% - some casualty replacement) B/1/32 Inf (start state 92% - some casualty replacement) C/2/2 Armor (start state 95% - some casualty replacement) Oh my god I hear all you core unit fans cry - what happened to A Coy? They are only at 80% - what happened in Mission 2? I had no control over that! Now feel the immersion gentlemen. So that is a way core units can work - but hey you'll never ask for that because you can't control it. Stick with what you can control which is that every battle in a campaign you fight you employ the best tactics you can with the most appropriate force elements (based on function in combat rather than core or auxilliary labels). Then you will feel the pain of every real world commander when you take losses and then you will be immersed and more importantly you will have a better understanding of what warfare is all about rather than trying to gain an artificial advantage through an artificial construct. So - if the example above is adopted - bring core units on! I can hack it what about the rest?

Sirocco, Yes the arguing from authority gambit clearly has no value at all does it? I can see that from all the threads about pathfinding, hull down positions, infantry disembarking ad bloody nauseum. Supersonic Bradleys anyone?

Sirocco, Why? Oh and I get irony (I'm British). So just for sh1ts and giggles tell me why you refused to read on.

Sirocco Here goes with this ... Question 1 - have you ever served in any kind of contemporary military organisation? If the answer is yes then you ought to learn more about your profession. Question 2 - there is no question 2 The bottom line (and this is what is good about CMSF is that people who comment on these forums might actually have been there and done it - that means that there is no grog speak about the range of a Brown Bess or the merits of the Ausf IVG versus the Ausf IVF because nobody is still alive - people who talk about this stuff have seen the elephant - which means that the game should improve thanks to that input). So wind your neck in sunshine and time to tell you why - based on your own statements and my experience as: 1 year TA Infantry as a rifleman and anti-tank gunner 22 Years Regular Colour Service Employed at HQs at the following levels: Joint Theatre Corps Division Brigade Battalion Operational tours in: Iraq Afghanistan Bosnia Northern Ireland Spent 3 years employed at the Land Warfare Centre employed as an Observer Controller (namely wargaming was my job amongst other things). In the US its like the National Training Center (sic) if that helps. Been shot at and been blown up and had one of my blokes wounded in action (who was not a core unit by the way - and I'm still in touch with the bloke thankfully) Also - not that its relevant but I have been wargaming since 1978 - so I know the systems and stuff. So lets run through some stuff then: You quoted this: Originally posted by Combatintman: Ok lets put this another way ... why are all of you core unit fans hell bent on making this game unrealistic? And then said this: Here's the thing; it's a game. You don't get more unrealistic than that. Fair enough then - bring on the hovering M1 Abrams I made it perfectly clear to start with that the clue is in the title with wargaming but what you fail to grasp is that the essence of wargaming is 'war'. I've been there and done that. You said: People aren't arguing for Hamstertruppen, just a sense of actually caring what happens to units. If you don't care for what happens to your units in a campaign you pulled the rug out from under the whole concept. So act like a real commander in real life and care for every person under your command rather than core units and auxilliary units. You said: The point isn't whether scenarios weren't fun, it was the sense of "ownership" that was lacking, and you don't need to play through an entire campaign to see that. I finished the first one, then the second loaded, and I exited. I didn't feel compelled to continue. You also said: You want to know who your platoon or squad leaders are, you want to be excited by their achievements, you want to feel it when you lose people you've tracked through battles. So by your own admission you've never tried it. What about factoring in the proportion of aux losses to core losses and either crediting or debiting the "score" accordingly? You could win the battle but effectively be relieved of command for poor leadership. Of course coding that to take into account unit types would take some thought. But then you'd just reload and start again - check out the thread about the latest campaign - I think the second person who'd tried it had reloaded after mission 1 or 2 despite the fact that the campaign designer had said 'don't do it' Well for me - it kills me when I take hits but I also can see the long term objective - we call it the endstate. So if you don't feel compelled to continue then fine - I am trained to fight through to the finish and the reason I'm trained to do that is because stuff like that happens sometimes. So that is gritty reality and that is what this wargame is coming close to simulating in the eyes of the professionals. So - I don't really give a flying thing that begins with an 'f' about what you are saying - what I know from the sharp end is that this system and the game that has been created here - works in general terms. It is true to the essence of modern warfare and yes there are problems but the system works - now if you can give me an argument based on actual experience vice a couple of games you might have played regarding why I and Battlefront are wrong about core units then bring it on. Otherwise be prepared for me to start the 'hovering M1' and 'whatever happened to hexes' threads - because that is what you are asking for.

Gibsonm - I know its a pleasure to have a fellow professional on here - I didn't know the context of the statement (as we all know - without a map we could both be talking Japanese!) - I suspect that one was a mission and the other was a task within X Coy Comd's mission. Anyway - might need some Commonwealth Support here and looking through your posts and knowing that you actually know what you are talking about ... watch and shoot...!

Ok lets put this another way ... why are all of you core unit fans hell bent on making this game unrealistic? This associating with your core units thing for the purposes of immersion is totally flawed. In real life, as has been pointed out by myself and other serving soldiers, the commander will conduct mission analysis and come up with a plan using every unit available according to their relative strengths and weaknesses. This happens even in the British Army which is more tribal than most (it has been said that the one guarantee about the British Army is that it spends more time fighting itself than the enemy). To take an example - CO 1 PWRR Battlegroup is not going to throw his tanks in first because they are from A Squadron Royal Scots Dragoon Guards ('auxilliary' in artificial wargaming construct terms) rather than 1 PWRR ('core' in artificial wargaming construct terms). He will use his tanks in such a manner to achieve the mission making best use of their strengths and weaknesses. Remember one of the responsibilities of the commander is to all of the troops under his command - when one dies irrespective of their cap badge or arm of service - he is ultimately responsible. So I repeat - what you are asking for is unrealistic. The design choice that has been made is realistic, the trouble it seems is that many of you are too conservative in outlook to accept this. What next - do we want to go back to hexes and zones of control?

Omenowl, I take your point with command groups but you should be doing that already. One of the biggest discussions that always took place when I was an Observer/Controller was the location of the Commander's TAC or the position of the commander himself. Also it was Prince Harry and not Prince William and if you will recall he was employed as a JTAC on Op HERRICK which means he will have been very much up front with the action. Back to the core units thing - I say again this is an artificial construct. I have no idea why many of you think it is a good idea and I am familiar with it having played Panzer and Allied General. I certainly husbanded core units in those campaigns because then I could build up their strength points past strength level 10. In effect that means that they could be built up way beyond authorised TO&E - now tell me the realism in that? Personally I wouldn't have the things at all but if we must have them then Webwing's solution is the only one that has any merit. Gibsonm - Too many tasks there surely? I'd plump for the same TASKORG and just say 'Secure Hill 123' and let OC X Coy Gp sort it out.

For those of us that say it is only a game - and yes I know the clue is in the word wargaming - sure it is, but why sacrifice realism to support a flawed concept that people have seen in a couple of other games when it is entirely unnecessary? Its like the debate about that other wargaming Holy Grail - the points system. Everyone wants it because thy're used to it from a whole raft of other games. In real life a battalion or company commander doesn't get told - you've got 600 points to spend, now get down the tank park. He gets told - your battalion will lose A Company for this mission and will have B Squadron attached. As is explained quite clearly in the manual - task-organisation uses an abstracted points system to ensure balance but employs realistic TO&Es. Same with the campaign issue - core units are deliberately hidden from players. As to the Afghan analogy - the answer is no regarding a greater willingness to throw the ANA into the more tricky tasks. They are given tasks that are within their capabilities and this is for a number of reasons: 1). Whatever casualties they take will have to be extracted by your IRT. This in itself may require you to divert your CAS to support the insert and extraction of the IRT or to call up ECAS. 2). Those casualties will be treated at your medical facilities. 3). If they fail in their 'tricky' task it will almost certainly require your reserve to be committed at a time and place that ideally you don't want to (although I understand that a reserve be necessity may have to do that). 4). The exit strategy is built upon Afghan solutions - therefore it makes no sense to use the ANA as cannon fodder.

Cambronne - where are you going with this? The USMC module is exactly that - it is a module. Battlefront are hardly going to make major changes to the way the AI operates and release it only with the USMC module are they?

And what we're saying is that you can't do it and asking for it opens up a whole can of worms. The system is like life ... it is a series of compromises. The solutions are quite simple - play WEGO, or hit PAUSE in RT or fight smaller engagements.

I disagree with this whole core units concept - it is a wargaming construct - you're all screaming for them because you've seen them elsewhere. In real life I doubt any battalion or company commander would be thrilled to know that his command is an auxilliary unit. The concept doesn't exist in real life western armies so why should it be represented in CMSF?

TOG, The fact that you don't know which are the core units is a deliberate design decision to stop players husbanding them which is a gamey tactic so I guess that it is unlikely that you'll ever know which those are - its in the manual (page 27 paragraph 2 refers). As to knowing the number of men you started with and have finished with - I'm not sure what you're getting at. The end screen tells you exactly how many men are ok at the end of the mission and how many you've lost.

Cambronne - of course you'll get more than a couple of uniforms and vehicles. You'll get USMC TO&Es and at least one Syrian TO&E and some new vehicles for them (the one specifically mentioned is an airborne formation equipped with the BMD). On top of that I'm pretty sure you'll get a campaign and some scenarios thrown in. Personally (waits for incoming) I'm not interested in the USMC at all but I'll buy it for the new Syrian stuff. On top of that the Modding community are bound to create campaigns and scenarios using the USMC module so that offers more gameplay as well. IMHO you'd be mad not to get it.

John, I use the phrase a lot - tells you how my life sucks sometimes!

Ok - but most of the answers are out there - take question 2 about terrain. If you read up about what the new WW2 game will offer it will give you an idea about when you're likely to see most of the new terrain (i.e. with the WW2 game - elements of which will be compatible with CMSF).

Have you tried CMMODS yet? Plenty of scenarios on there - I'll admit its not my thing so its not something I've looked for but there'll almost certainly be something that you're looking for there.

Erm and have you tried the search button or the 'where we're headed from here' thread?

And if modern warfare's your thing - just buy it!

I don't know where to start with this to be honest - if you don't like it - play WEGO. Otherwise if the management levels were upped to Pl or Coy level and there was less ability to micromanage can you imagine the whingeing that would go on. There's plenty of it already regarding cornering/entering buildings/target/target light/hunt (I'm losing the will to live already) etc ad nauseum. This is a can of worms that IMHO doesn't need opening. [ April 18, 2008, 05:33 PM: Message edited by: Combatintman ]

Thanks for that advice - I'm really struggling with getting the balance right with victory conditions. I plan on revisiting some of my scenarios when I get the time because I'm not happy about the victory conditions.

Gibsonm - yep - having reread my post I shouldn't have said 'primarily for the urban environment'.

I can't speak for the game model or for how the US forces operate but in the British Army this is roughly how it works: To take the Stryker Squad example - in the British Army everyone should have a PRR (Personal Role Radio) which allows everyone in the Section to talk to each other. Given that the crew of the vehicle and the section in the back are one and the same it would mean that anybody who sees a threat can call it over the PRR which would mean that the vehicle crew would receive the information. Moving higher up - each organisation has its own radio net so a Brigade radio net will have its Battlegroups (TFs in US-speak) as callsigns on that net. Each Battlegroup has its own net with its Squadrons and Companies as callsigns on that net. Each Company/Squadron Group (Team in US-speak) has its Platoons/Troops/Sections as callsigns on that net. So let us say that 1 Section/1 Platoon/A Company/1 LOAMSHIRES which is part of 1 Armoured Brigade gets involved in a contact. That report would be called in on PRR to the section commander. The section commander calls it in on the A Company Net to the 1 Platoon Commander who then gets on the A Company Net and sends the contact report. The Company commander would then switch to the 1 LOAMSHIRES Battlegroup Net and send the report up to Battlegroup who in turn would switch to the 1 Brigade Net and pass it on to Brigade HQ. In terms of lateral communications - if the tank for instance is part of the same Company or Squadron group then as the infantry then they will both be on the same radio net and can communicate directly to each other without having to pass messages up and down the chain of command.

I can't speak for the game model or for how the US forces operate but in the British Army this is roughly how it works: To take the Stryker Squad example - in the British Army everyone should have a PRR (Personal Role Radio) which allows everyone in the Section to talk to each other. Given that the crew of the vehicle and the section in the back are one and the same it would mean that anybody who sees a threat can call it over the PRR which would mean that the vehicle crew would receive the information. Moving higher up - each organisation has its own radio net so a Brigade radio net will have its Battlegroups (TFs in US-speak) as callsigns on that net. Each Battlegroup has its own net with its Squadrons and Companies as callsigns on that net. Each Company/Squadron Group (Team in US-speak) has its Platoons/Troops as callsigns on that net. So let us say that 1 Section/1 Platoon/A Company/1 LOAMSHIRES which is part of 1 Armoured Brigade gets involved in a contact. That report would be called in on PRR to the section commander. The section commander then gets on the A Company Net and sends the contact report. The Company commander would then switch to the 1 LOAMSHIRES Battlegroup Net and send the report up to Battlegroup who in turn would switch to the 1 Brigade Net and pass it on to Brigade HQ.

The tank phone is designed primarily for the urban environment. It allows the infantry who generally have better situational awareness in that environment to speak to the tank commander without having to climb on the vehicle and expose themselves if the crew are battened down. Usually used therefore for the infantry to pass on threats or give target indications to the tank crew who may not necessarily have the same view as the infantry. It would therefore be logical for passage of information between the two to be better in the urban environment than when there is a tank without the phone fitted.

Yes and no - of course balconies add to protection (not much mind - 7.62 GPMG will go through balconies and walls of most buildings) but there is a reason sometimes why people venture out onto them. Difficult to see/engage an enemy at street level if you're in a building with the balcony in the way. Snipers are more likely to be on rooftops with small loopholes knocked out of the wall. There are plenty of pictures of both Iraq and Afghanistan showing this.