Combatintman

The other issue with hull down is that the commander sits in the hull to the LH side of the turret which effects their ability to find, observe and track a target when hull down and generally to be honest.  The gunner should always be closed down in the turret because they have to man the gun and look through the gun sight.  Having crawled around a few of them, I can vouch for the fact that the BMP-1 is not a good operator's environment.

+1 you are correct the mechanics of the editor are easy, I hope others follow your lead and embark on the journey of exploring the editor.

Ah OK yep that's dead easy, thanks
What about Unit Objectives, can I delete them too?
thx
THH

Well that is not true as there are conjoined buildings on the screenshots.  There could be a number of reasons for how the map has been put together which could be:
Absence of decent imagery or town plans for Tukums in the late war period. The limitations imposed by the building picks in the editor. How to fit them on the action square grid. Working buildings into the required area within the limits of the north, south, east, west, north east, north west, south east and south west options available in the editor. Urban areas in particular in the map editor require huge compromises - churches for instance can only be north, east, south or west oriented.  Buildings on diagonals are generally larger than you want them to be if you want to replicate every single building on a real world map.  Then of course there is the issue of whether you think including the street furniture (lamp posts, telegraph poles, road signage etc) is important and whether you want those houses that have gardens and fences to have those gardens and fences and testing and adjusting as necessary.

It was a less irritated face than the one I pulled when looking at a recent post by someone who eschews the editor and has made no released maps making comments lacking any evidence whatsoever dismissing comments by someone who has made one or two real world maps in same editor on a thread where someone is looking for help on creating a good map.
However ... hump shunting did cause mirth when explained in the video.

You shouldn't be thinking it is coming out this year - @BFCElvisposted a planned release date on 06 September 2020 - if you're that interested you'd do the research.

As Elvis works for Steve you would think that Steve would have authorised that date commitment - so call it nonsense all you like.  I also can live with the fact that, based on previous performance, it may not hit that target date.  If it doesn't hit the target date, it will almost certainly be for reasons of quality control.

As did I, but there should be no confusion. I have never served in the US forces but it is blatantly obvious that a unit marked as XO is the second highest in the chain of command in a given US TO&E as displayed in the CM UI. Likewise, British 2ICs are thus labelled in the game UI and again it is blatantly obvious that any unit with that designation is the second highest in the chain of command in a Commonwealth TO&E.
Additionally @Rinaldis post covered off on the nomenclature and its relative unimportance - call it 'second group', the 'not quite the Boss group' or whatever those terms are in French and Italian, it doesn't matter because the functions are essentially the same.

Err … both my last and @Rinaldi's post have covered off on the XO/2IC question.

This thread started with a question about employment of reconnaissance elements and has then morphed into discussions about XOs and who does what plus a plea for accurate information.
Here is what the US Army has to say about these topics across a number of some of the US Army organisations in CMSF:
Reconnaissance Platoon
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/atp3_20x98.pdf
Infantry Company
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN8519_ATP%203-21x10%20Final%20Web.pdf
Tank Platoon
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ARN4803_ATP%203-20x15%20FINAL%20WEB%20INCL%20C1.pdf
Cavalry Squadron
https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/ATP%203-20x96%20FINAL%20WEB.pdf
If you’re genuinely interested about who does what, along with lots of other stuff then read the above.
Otherwise there is a discussion about emulating real life in the game. Very laudable but entirely impossible because one of the oft-discussed functions is the treatment of casualties and resupply.
As an example, at platoon level, taking the two armies I’ve served in (British and Australian), it is the Platoon Sergeant who is primarily responsible for policing up casualties and sorting out ammo replens in battle as well as being prepared to step up if the Platoon Commander goes down. In CMSF British Forces, the Platoon Sergeant is grouped with the Platoon Commander making it completely impossible to employ the Platoon Sergeant realistically if you are employing the Platoon Commander realistically and vice versa,
Moving up to company level and higher, CM does not include a lot of the CSS assets that are in the real life TO&E. Again, taking the British Light Role Battalion in CMSF, the Company Sergeant Major (CSM) is nowhere to be found. He is there but is grouped either with the Company OC or the Company 2IC teams (Company 2IC Team if memory serves me right but I would have to check). As with the Platoon Sergeant at platoon level, the CSM would be the person responsible for gripping up the CSS in combat. The result is that if you want to conduct CSS functions in CM, you have to use people or assets that, in RL, would not be performing those tasks.
Discussing accurate ammunition loads is trickier but again governed by the game. The TO&E issues troops with their known (or best guess) SOP loadouts. The game also places limits on what can be carried and/or penalties in terms of movement and fatigue if you load your troops up with heaps of ammunition. This is a case of knowing what those are, deciding whether the extra load is worth the slower movement/higher fatigue and your own style of gaming. Ultimately though the game, albeit imperfectly, will generally not allow you to do something that is not possible in RL. As to how to play the game, if you want to limit your troops to 400 rounds then fine, fill your boots. I might bang on about realism in board discussions about military matters because
I feel it is important and I have considerable experience and first hand knowledge to add. There is a lot of ignorance or a lot of misconceptions being bandied about which need to be countered. It is something that underpins the design philosophy of these games. When I play the game, I never touch Iron mode and only play Elite mode when I am testing scenarios. That is because my impression from forum discussions is that most people play on this setting and in scenario design you have to ensure that the experience is going to be optimised for the majority of players. When I play for fun, I usually play Basic Training mode because I just enjoy playing that way.
I’m unconvinced about the practice of keeping the best units back until achieving a breakthrough. The breakthrough is the hard task so it makes sense to use your best troops to achieve it. Let’s say this is a battalion attack and you decide to use B Company commanded by Major Nice-But-Dim rather than A Company commanded by Major Average or C Company commanded by Major Achiever to kick off the breakthrough. Major Nice-But-Dim’s company steps off and doesn’t achieve the mission because they’re a bit sh1t, this means that you have to commit A Company (if they’re not doing anything else averagely) or Major Achiever’s C Company to get the job done. In this instance you stand a greater chance of failing at the first hurdle and having to commit two or three companies when one could have done the job. If you commit Major Achiever’s C Company in the first place, you stand more chance of getting the tricky bit done leaving the other companies to exploit, which is a whole bunch easier than breaking into the position (US readers should delete Major and insert Captain in the above example by the way). In my six years’ experience as an Observer/Controller at a Brigade and Battlegroup trainer in the UK, the best unit/sub-unit always got the main effort task (not necessarily the most difficult by the way).
Returning to Passage at Wilcox, the scenario and two solutions are at PP 52-56 here:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0ByottM1hQ47jUV9wZ1ZXeVVvTWs/view

The essence of warfare is friction. You're the commander so you want to reduce friction so go and look at the map, work out where you want to look to support your scheme of manoeuvre and assign assets accordingly. Read my planning tutorial or Bil Hardenberger's blog or any of his AARs.

Although this uses WW2 Eastern Front as the example - an example of planning using modern planning techniques which may be of use:
No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial - Combat Mission Red Thunder - Battlefront.com Community

Well that is not true as there are conjoined buildings on the screenshots.  There could be a number of reasons for how the map has been put together which could be:
Absence of decent imagery or town plans for Tukums in the late war period. The limitations imposed by the building picks in the editor. How to fit them on the action square grid. Working buildings into the required area within the limits of the north, south, east, west, north east, north west, south east and south west options available in the editor. Urban areas in particular in the map editor require huge compromises - churches for instance can only be north, east, south or west oriented.  Buildings on diagonals are generally larger than you want them to be if you want to replicate every single building on a real world map.  Then of course there is the issue of whether you think including the street furniture (lamp posts, telegraph poles, road signage etc) is important and whether you want those houses that have gardens and fences to have those gardens and fences and testing and adjusting as necessary.

Well go find them smarty pants - I spent two weeks on a course studying railway yards in the European theatre and had to endure a 30 minute Deutsche Bundesbahn video on how shunting yards work.  I travel on trains frequently and because I am a trained imagery analyst - I look at stuff and how things should look like and what looks out of place.

It was a less irritated face than the one I pulled when looking at a recent post by someone who eschews the editor and has made no released maps making comments lacking any evidence whatsoever dismissing comments by someone who has made one or two real world maps in same editor on a thread where someone is looking for help on creating a good map.
However ... hump shunting did cause mirth when explained in the video.

Although this uses WW2 Eastern Front as the example - an example of planning using modern planning techniques which may be of use:
No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial - Combat Mission Red Thunder - Battlefront.com Community

Well that is not true as there are conjoined buildings on the screenshots.  There could be a number of reasons for how the map has been put together which could be:
Absence of decent imagery or town plans for Tukums in the late war period. The limitations imposed by the building picks in the editor. How to fit them on the action square grid. Working buildings into the required area within the limits of the north, south, east, west, north east, north west, south east and south west options available in the editor. Urban areas in particular in the map editor require huge compromises - churches for instance can only be north, east, south or west oriented.  Buildings on diagonals are generally larger than you want them to be if you want to replicate every single building on a real world map.  Then of course there is the issue of whether you think including the street furniture (lamp posts, telegraph poles, road signage etc) is important and whether you want those houses that have gardens and fences to have those gardens and fences and testing and adjusting as necessary.

Well go find them smarty pants - I spent two weeks on a course studying railway yards in the European theatre and had to endure a 30 minute Deutsche Bundesbahn video on how shunting yards work.  I travel on trains frequently and because I am a trained imagery analyst - I look at stuff and how things should look like and what looks out of place.

It was a less irritated face than the one I pulled when looking at a recent post by someone who eschews the editor and has made no released maps making comments lacking any evidence whatsoever dismissing comments by someone who has made one or two real world maps in same editor on a thread where someone is looking for help on creating a good map.
However ... hump shunting did cause mirth when explained in the video.

Although this uses WW2 Eastern Front as the example - an example of planning using modern planning techniques which may be of use:
No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial - Combat Mission Red Thunder - Battlefront.com Community

Well go find them smarty pants - I spent two weeks on a course studying railway yards in the European theatre and had to endure a 30 minute Deutsche Bundesbahn video on how shunting yards work.  I travel on trains frequently and because I am a trained imagery analyst - I look at stuff and how things should look like and what looks out of place.

Although this uses WW2 Eastern Front as the example - an example of planning using modern planning techniques which may be of use:
No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial - Combat Mission Red Thunder - Battlefront.com Community

Well go find them smarty pants - I spent two weeks on a course studying railway yards in the European theatre and had to endure a 30 minute Deutsche Bundesbahn video on how shunting yards work.  I travel on trains frequently and because I am a trained imagery analyst - I look at stuff and how things should look like and what looks out of place.

Although this uses WW2 Eastern Front as the example - an example of planning using modern planning techniques which may be of use:
No Plan Survives First Contact With The Enemy - Planning Tutorial - Combat Mission Red Thunder - Battlefront.com Community

They are all the same as I said in my earlier post - exhaust gases go out one end and a rocket goes out the other.