Combatintman

When in doubt ... read the pam ...

Except dismounts can cross some types of terrain that vehicles can't.

Streams are generally fordable, the only time they shouldn't be is if the tile on which they are painted or tiles on either side of the stream contain impassable terrain. You just have to move your cursor over the area you want to cross and see whether it shows it as being impassable. I accept that this is fiddly but it is the only way to be sure.

Returned Services League - an Australian veterans organisation of which I am a card carrying member.

Looks like the dead Chinese guy was right then ... “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.” Sun Tzu, The Art of War

In the scenarios folder - if you're on windows then the pathway will probably be something like this: C:\Users\yourname\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Cold War\Game Files\Scenarios

Blue has limited assets and, is working under the same time constraints as Red, has the same objectives as Red and beyond knowing that there are a couple of BRDMs in the village, knows that a flank security element of unknown strength and composition is on its way. That means moving armour into the village without infantry support is a reasonable calculated risk to take particularly when you don't have too many dismounts and a tank is better at zapping a BRDM than an infantry unit is. And of course you will want to get your infantry onto that objective as quickly as you can because that is your main objective. Its easy to be a smart and clever after you know what's going to happen and now that you've finally won after losing at least 10 times. And of course if you don't like the AI plan, crack it open in the editor, fill your boots and change it.

No - the AI plan has to assume that the Red player is going to use one of two avenues of approach or both. That means that it needs to cover an approach from the right flank and cover an approach from the front. You are quite right, the Blue force could just sit back and pick off most of the enemy but in your original post you couldn't win it with the AI plan as it is. I would take that to mean that it was hardly a 'blunder.' In testing, the BRDM-2s in the town are quite capable of inflicting an F-kill on the TOW wagons which is also worth bearing in mind.

Here's your fundamental orchestration flaw - nobody is going to load up an H2H battle and expect nothing to happen. It doesn't matter what you put in the briefing to that effect. The German player will automatically make some provision for enemy action because that is what must happen in the scenario.

The red side is numerically superior - just not in tanks. I can't remember the full force size but, given that you have BMP's plus BRDM ATGMs plus tanks, all of which are capable of knocking out a tank then your force has a greater anti-armour capability than the Blue side. I wouldn't call it a balanced scenario - it is harder as the Red player but one of the testers got a victory straight out of the box as Red.

Well there are a couple of things here ... If this is a historical action then remember the advice in the Scenario Design Manual that says something along the lines of 'real battles often make poor scenarios.' Anway, park that thought and move on. The main issue is that the Tac AI is probably thinking - I've only got rifles and LMGs so my effective range is 300m or so. - I won't fire with the bulk of my weapons until the enemy gets within effective range. If you're determined to get those dudes to fire then you have to think either employ triggered target orders or give them an HMG or why not a flak gun? The other thing you can do is stick a German standing patrol in that wood - defending 101 is to employ active and not passive defence. Making the paras fight for the wood will first of all give the player pause for thought and the small German patrol might get lucky and knock over some of the ranged weapon systems or at least cause enough casualties to mean that the suppressive effect from the paras when they get to the wood and set up their base of fire is reduced. You can also impose some stiff parameters on the paras through Victory Points (VPs). As they are paras you could have a 50% (or whatever figure you find works in testing) ammo consumption parameter for instance - it is realistic as they drop with light scales and they will not want to blow through all of their ammunition in their first engagement because they might have to hold the bridge for a few days. If the VPs punish the paras sufficiently then the player has to work harder for that victory. Most scenarios in CMSF work on this premise because Blue forces so overwhelm UNCONs and the Syrians in a stand-up fight that the only way you make your scenario challenging is through the VPs. As casualties in the modern era are frowned upon, most scenarios would set friendly casualty parameters in the 10% or lower range which creates the challenge for the player while being true-to-life. Now this is less appropriate for WW2 which is why I suggest you go down the ammunition route but I wanted to explain how it works.

My view is that if you are trying to force something then generally the premise of the scenario or the tactical situation you have created is flawed. If that German force is pretty important to the integrity of the whole scenario and the opposition knows where it is and can approach it without too much trouble then give your head a wobble and think about other ways to crack the problem - maybe even redefine the problem. I find that in nine cases out of ten, you can have a solution that doesn't involve jerking around with triggers and area fire or other such unnecessarily complex jiggery pokery. Defenders in my battles are generally set with an ambush order of whatever meterage and then either a timed or triggered bug out order to the next position. Many of my defenders have no orders at all. The Tac AI should be able to handle most situations for a relatively static defending force realistically enough. If it can't - like I said - you have problems with how this scenario is orchestrated.

Fire and Fury is a set of miniatures wargaming rules. I also wouldn't set too much store on them being totally accurate either. I had a rummage through the British lists for the Cold War and found them a useful starting point for sure but found some pretty glaring errors in them once I dug into the research.

No to the first - why would they be there in 1979-1982? I can see a case for the helicopters but they wouldn't be overly high on my list of wants.

Combat Mission Cold War - Combat Mission: Cold War will release July 22nd - Steam News (steampowered.com)

Because they're not interested in making one.

I suspect that GerryCMBB has finished this scenario in the four and a half years since the original post.

Oh I know, and I'm sure it was popular - but best to restate the 'not going to happen' argument early I think. Particularly given what @Bil Hardenbergerwho was one of the main movers and shakers in this project has said.

Raise a formal ticket mate. Click the new ticket box in the top right hand corner of the link: Battlefront.com, Inc. | Mojo Helpdesk

My solution - first vehicle 'Fast' second vehicle 5 second pause 'Quick', third vehicle 10 second pause 'Move' or variations on that theme depending on the number of turns in the road etc. Is it painful - yes, should there be a follow command - yes, but as others have pointed out, it has not arrived because the attempt to make one would just not work satisfactorily in testing.

The discussion is moot - @Bil Hardenberger has just said I can bet more than both of my pensions on Invasion America not happening as an official module; however, I'll play the game ... How much water between Soviet Union and Cuba? How big was the USN and its NATO allies at this time vs the Soviet navy? Why did Krushchev cave in over the Cuba missile crisis?

Why? It worked in testing - 1200 soldiers for sure does not seem excessive. A company is about 100-150 soldiers and a battalion 500-800 - chuck in attachments on both sides and I would see this as pretty normal for a realistic scenario where a company, the so-called sweet spot, is in defence. I won't deny that it will challenging on certain platforms but this is not outwith realistic parameters.

Even if they were based on non-Soviet publications those so-called "Western assertions" were solidly based. I know from experience that both the US and UK had some pretty swept up Soviet studies branches staffed by Russian speakers and specialists in the discipline and no doubt other NATO nations had similar capabilities. On top of that the intelligence operations with which I am very familiar, having worked on one of them, were enduring, comprehensive and multi-disciplined. The doctrinal pamphlets therefore benefited from the results of the massive collection effort. The Soviet Army was largely a conscript army which in time of war prioritised getting to places quickly, en masse supported by massive amounts of firepower. To achieve all of this, it needed forces that were well-armed, reasonably well-protected and mobile that could deploy quickly and with the minimum of coordination. For this it employed a series of simple but highly effective drills in offensive operations. Those drills were practiced on exercises which were overtly publicised and often attended by Western military attaches. Fine if you want to go with the 'yes but they will only show what they want people to see' argument but other exercises were tracked by NATO intelligence and in Germany these were covertly tracked by the three Allied Military Missions (BRIXMS, MMFL and the USMLM). Skepticism is fine in limited doses but it is not so in this case.

@Roter Stern - bloody good tests there and pretty much confirms to me that the Dragon model is bang on the nail. Have a like.

And these ... @Canuck21 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-59?pos=5 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-60?pos=6 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-61?pos=7 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-62?pos=8 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-63?pos=9 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-64?pos=10 https://ncap.org.uk/frame/6-1-1-18-65?pos=11 Note you don't have to buy these - the downloadable images are good enough for you to be able to make image grids in Google Earth to be able to see what used to be there and what isn't there now. Clearly if there are fields in your 1940s image and buildings in the current one woohoo no faffing around placing buildings etc. The map @Pete Wenman posted up which is post war but based on a 1940s survey seems to be pretty on the mark for what the place looked like during the war based on one of the images I gridded - image below. Kml file - not sure whether you'll get the image but we'll see Buchholz.kml Anyway major thread derailment again - apologies @kohlenklau