jnt62006

Hey sounds good. I have all the modules as well. Very experienced player. Send me something and we can get started. toddj4143@gmail.com

I'll bite! Send me a note (or a starter file) at toddj4143@gmail.com Experienced player (all the way back to the original CMBO)

Had to take a break last couple months due to move and work. Apologies to those that I lost contact with. Looking to start up some new games. Experienced player, capable of at least one sometimes two turns a day. toddj4143@gmail.com

I'm coming back after a break due to work. Be glad to play a game or two with you. Send me a starter file at toddj4143@gmail.com

OK, so my guess is that Battlefront wanted one of the HQ sections (HQ, HQ support unit) to act as a Fire Direction Center (FDC) which every indirect fire elment on the battlefield requires. (These are the guys who answer the radio, plot the targets, and send the firing data to the guns.) My guess is this is supposed to be the support element mounted on the Jeep. The PL (HQ) can then either go with the MGs or act as an FO. Can someone with some real knowledge of the game design confirm/deny this assumption?

George, great work as always, beautiful map, will play that one again and again. One question, I may have missed it in the scenario brief but why are the Germans trying to seize a bridgehead when they already have forces across the river (recon elements)?

I put these tutorials together for CMSF but the basics of fire and maneuver are the same. Take the principles and apply them and I think you will have more success. http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com/

Most of the US Armys actual experience with ATGMs and their employment comes from the National Training Center in California. It is not uncommon for an ATGM team to launch a missile and have their target shooting back at them before the missile strikes. Now, this is a training environment so there is no actual missile but the on board computers in each vehicle and weapon system calculate the flight time of the missile before it registers a kill. What makes it possible for the tank and IFV crews to respond so quickly is the signature that a launching missle creates. There is always a huge plum of smoke and dust that paints a huge arrow right to the firing unit (also simulated with a smoke munition at NTC). And since most ATGMs are wire guided they require the gunner to maintain a steady sight picture of the target throughout the engagement. So the most effective response for an armored vehicle is to conduct area fire at the firing point as soon as one of those plums of smoke appears, hopefully distracting the gunner. If you have a tank platoon that is moving with each tank watching its required sector, it would be very difficult to conduct a ATGM strike without being spotted immediately. This is one of the most interesting things about weapons and warfare. There is always a counter-balance to every system, tactic, etc. As a side note the Javelin was designed specifically to counter these short falls of the average ATGM. It is fire and forget which means that the computer in the missile tracks to the target, allowing the gunner to seek cover immediately after firing. Each missile has a small booster which pops it out of the launch tube and into the air before its main motor engages, which significantly reduces the tell-tale plum of smoke and debris. It is also a top-down round which means it pops into the air over the target and tries to achieve a hit on the top. So from my experience real world, albeit in training, it is not unfeasible at all for an armored vehicle to be able to suppress an ATGM crew as soon as they fire and expose themselves.

Sticky, I will check out the Forging Steel campaign and get back to you. I also put up a couple posts on the Opponent Finder board, looking for PBEM games for CMSF and CM:N. Any one on here interested?

Would like to stay current with CMSF as I check out CM:N. Any one interested in a few PBEM games? I have all the modules.

Looking for PBEM opponents. Any skill level welcome. PM or write to toddj4143@gmail.com

Scouts can be used effectively as spotters. But you have to keep in mind their actual role. Intel collecting while avoiding contact with the enemy. So basically, if you position your scouts on a piece of high ground and they come under enemy fire, then they failed. You can play the scout/recon game however you want, thats obviously the theme of this thread and others. But if you want to use them doctrinally then dont use them at all. CMSF, in most instances, simulates the point of attack or defense in what would really be a much larger (and longer) military operation. In which case the scouts would have completed their recon and either pulled off the objective or moved past it in an attempt to gain intel on future routes, objectives, etc. But there are instances where recon of the objective could be conducted by the player. Look to my Stryker tutorial and youtube vid for an example. Doctrinally, even a leaders recon of his objective should still be focused on specific intel requirements he needs and framed by his enemy sitemp. Links: http://cmsfwarchest.blogspot.com/2010_12_12_archive.html http://www.youtube.com/user/tjcmsf

Yes, the Scout platoon for a bradley or combined arms battalion is designed to take offensive action if necessary and to fight a counter recon fight. It is much more robust than a light infantry scout platoon. Its three CFVs have enough protection and firepower to defeat most threat reconnaissance elements and it can destroy small OPs or screens that an enemy unit might have. Its "stealth" comes with the HMMWVs that are also in its TO&E. Manned with small scout teams and equipped with the LRAS these vehicles can move around the battlefield faster and quieter than the CFVs.

Well, yeah... But that cycle occurs way above the focus of a CMSF scenario.

I suppose what erks me about trying to conduct recon on a playing "board" just a few kilometers square, at best, is not so much that it just isnt "real life" but that it goes against the art and science of tactics and denies the efficient use of fire and maneuver. Yes you can play the game however you want. Knock yourself out. But the real core of warfighting is the ability to read terrain and know your enemy's capabilities well enough to look at an objective and say "ok, he's most likely going to have forces here because it commands this avenue of approach. He's going to have units in overwatch here because it allows him to control this terrain from a distance. His counterattacking force is most likely going to come from this direction." That is the science. Applying what you know about the terrain ("reading" it) and what you know about his weapon systems and from that developing a pretty close idea of how the enemy would like the battle to unfold. The art is then being able to develop a plan of attack that, based on those semi accurate assumptions, knocks the enemy out of his comfort zone and forces him to then react to your moves. The art is seizing the initiative and maintaining it, which allows you to focus combat power where you want and win decisively. In my opinion, conducting reconnaissance in a CMSF scenario denies the player the ability to really hone the planning and decision making process which is the key to warfighting. It short changes the player on exercising the art and science of tactics.