Neurasthenio

Remember you are not playing the part of all-knowing Godalmighty in the game, you're playing the part of - usually - the company commander. Sometimes the company commander discovers to his horror that his western outpost has been over-run while his attention was turned elsewhere and he's being encircled. War is hell that way.

Unless you play turnbased mode (WeGo), of course. Personally i recommend you to play WeGo when you play larger battles, after some time you will get accustomed to it and find it easier than RT.

The revolution was the advent of CMx2. Since then, it's been evolution. The current model offers the possibility of progression, so there won't be another revolution until BFC feel that progression is inadequate.
 
It is not a banana republic, with a revolution every year or two and a "new bestest thing totally different to the old thing, which was the worst" round every corner. That's simply impossible for a game as complex as CM and a coder base as small as BFC, even if it were desirable.

Dont stay static for long ... Move fast in dashes, use cover and concealment, recon, recon, recon (drones, specialized troops).For russian: arty is your friend, suppress suspected enemy infantry positions, move fast from overhead cover to overhead cover to prevent javelin from acquiring (slow) and if not possible use trees as APS. Get in close fast.

The T-90AM with version 1.03 (relikt quite effective) can win long range fights (2000 meters +) with the M1A2 .

Krizanthema is very effective and would be even more so in real life (toned down in game).

When in COIN, worry about collateral damage.
 
When at war, worry about ending the mission with artillery rounds unfired.  

patience

The advantages to fixed wing are chiefly in weapons I believe.  The various bombs will do a number on ANYTHING if they hit.  This is especially useful when dealing with infantry in buildings or urban environments.  Direct hits on AFVs tend to be quite dramatic too.  Additionally the sort of ATGMs carried on fixed wing assets are a good deal "beefier" than rotary wing and offer fairly minimal chance of survival or escape once they're on track.
 
On the other hand the ability of rotary wing to find its own targets better, and often respectable ATGM loads makes them pretty handy.   

No flak, but I woulld humbly disagree. That is far too broad a statement. I have seen the tac AI do some pretty incredible stuff (anybody recall a post I did on one HerrProbst?).

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/95381-cmbn-screenshot-thread/?p=1296285
And that was in the first version of CMBN.

And has seen much refinement. That being said I have also seen it do some dumba** stuff, kinda just like real life.

few things. 15-30 seconds of target briefly with explodey weapons then tiny move order and target lite for mg suppressive fire only. one assault team rushes the house and either paauses at the threshold of door or another team does so while a smaller scout team run inside. i always try to have heavy weapons support in place before crossing each street and attacking. this means deployed AGS OR MK19S, sniper teams, lmgs,hmgs, and often when you split squads one half has the heavier weapons e.g. belt fed mgs for Ukr or whatever those and other heavier weapons i place on top floors where possible ready to have as many units as possible open up once the enemy begins firing at troops rushing the buildings. finally a lot can be said for falling back and shooting at few atgms or spgs or mbt main guns into buildings. i also liberally prep areas with a creeping barrage of 122,152 mm fire that i plan my men to enter within next ten min. if i feel i can enter a block and therefore flabk the enemy and figure he.s weaker on the lateral blocks ill try to use smoke to box off the combat area in question from outside fire from the enemy

There are a lot of good tips here. I follow a couple of different techniques, depending on whether or not I know/suspect the building is occupied or not.
 
First, NEVER use ASSAULT when approaching/entering a building. ASSAULT moves each team of a squad, one at a time, to the waypoint, and then to the next waypoint. If I have a 3-team squad, that's a whole lot of exposure time for the first team.
 
Instead, split off an ASSAULT TEAM. (It's in the Admin command tab.) They're the guys with the grenades and CQB weapons. 
 
If I know/suspect the building is occupied, I'll nail it with every HE weapon I can, for at least one turn. That will pin and suppress the occupants. If nothing else, the Assault Team and Covering Team will TARGET the building. (Note: if you split a squad into teams, but don't give them movement orders, they'll recombine. To prevent this, give a "false" movement order. QUICK (or anything else) with a PAUSE greater than 1 minute.) 
 
When it's time to assault, I lift the TARGET commands and use TARGET LIGHT. (TARGET uses HE, which causes friendly casualties). I make sure no heavy machineguns  use TARGET LIGHT. They will not cause friendly casualties, but they will cause suppression/pins. Not good when you're about to kick down a door. Use TARGET BRIEFLY, say, 30 seconds. Have your assault team PAUSE for 30 seconds. (Or just 15 if they need ~20 seconds or more to get adjacent to building.) The goal is to have the least delay between the lifting of TARGET orders and your assault team getting to the building.
 
Have the assault team get next to the building. If there are enemy units/exposure down the street, smoke the LOS that way so your assault team is not vulnerable to aimed fire when stacked at the target building.
 
If the wall they're on has windows, have them TARGET BRIEF into the room. Give them a 15 second PAUSE, then QUICK into the room. It is very important to add a 360 degree covered arc at the end of the QUICK order, encompassing the room plus about 5m. You don't want your guys orienting to the original target spot they had when stacked outside and looking inside. (You could give TARGET BRIEF twice, and then you'd give a 30 second PAUSE. It depends how many grenades you want to use and how much spray and pray you think is appropriate.)
 
The overwatch element(s) should engage any enemy which try to flee or shift positions within the building. Or, give them a PAUSE (to coincide with their TARGET BRIEF command) and shift positions with a move order, and from that new location use TARGET (or LIGHT, or BRIEF) to suppress other locations.
 
If your assault team stacks next to windowless wall, that's even better. Use a breach or demo charge and BLAST your way in. That'll pin/suppress most of the enemy. Same rule: 360 target arc at the endpoint with a 5m or so circle beyond the confines.
 
Now, if you want to get fancy, time a second element to charge in AFTER the first one dominates the room. Have the second element FACE a specific direction, like the room next door. (Check for interior windows and doors.)
 
 
If you don't know/suspect an enemy is there, a much more abbreviated approach would be appropriate. Less booms, more small caliber (TARGET LIGHT), more observation time from a distance. Don't try to enter (after the prep fire); just get next to it and look in. The walls will protect your guys from surprises inside. (Of course, they may get machinegunned by enemy units in a different building, but that's situational dependent.)
 
You WILL lose men in MOUT. No competent enemy will let anything else happen. Since there interior of buildings are abstracted, you should expect enemy to survive your cover fire/grenading when you enter. So, even if you follow the procedures I've written, men will die. This just minimizes it. Hopefully.
 
The timing is something you'll learn with more play. If you have a "bad" entry, save the game and replay your orders phase until you find a timing which works. That kind of repetition is the best way to learn.
 
YMMV.
 
Ken

I usually level the building if possible, if not supress as much as possible move an assault team within 30M perferabily behind the building, have them target briefly for 15-30 second with a 15-30 second pause. this will allow then to throw grenades and further supress. after the pause have them move quick into the first floor with a target briefly to the next floor above. also if possible go to the blindside of a building and blow the side out with a satchel. DO NOT hunt the assault needs to be quick and violent. hunt will only get your guys killed in the open. do not rely on your men spoting shoot first ask questions later. if you get a possible contact light em up you know theyre enemy.

Some missions will explicitly warn you against trying to seize every objective or engage the enemy at every point. This should be considered in every mission though. You will not have a textbook victory every time you play. That's not how this game works. 

MOUT is pretty much like any other terrain, when it comes to winning a fight. Finding enemy, fixing, (flanking - optional), finishing. The question is how to do it most efficiently. OCOKA battlefield terrain analysis still applies in MOUT.
 
Start by thinking if you actually have to clear that particular area, or you can just suppress it and bypass. If that's an objective area you have to capture, yeah, you have to clear it. Then. Expose yourself as little as possible (when approaching), while, at the same time, be ready to give back as much firepower as possible at minimal amount of time (project max DPS, if you will), to be able to win firefight. Think "combat width", from Paradox games, if you're familiar with, say, HOI3. Yours vs enemy. But here, it is multidimensional space.
 
THE best thing to do is to never allow enemy to fire at you in the first place. But that's not always possible. Total suppression is hard to achieve, and you can't suppress everything all the time.
 
Examples:
 
Enemy is in 2+ story building behind a wall. If his guys are sitting on the first floor, when you come in and breach in one point, your support assets (if positioned only behind breaching team) won't be able to fire at the enemy, that can fire at guys that breach.
 
OR, if they are in the building(or even a room) behind the building you're assaulting. Your breaching team comes inside, and gets attacked from the opposite side, and your support assets can't reach there.
 
Avoid such problematic spots. Use entry points that, upon reaching them, cannot be fired at from positions you cannot fire back at with your supporting assets, immediately.

I wouldn't mind it as an option, but I think that in most games the 60 second turn works quite well. I've always felt that the "OH ****!" moments in CM games are part of what makes them so much fun.

Zebbe,
 
Welcome aboard!
 
I'm absolutely in agreement with Bud_B on playing QBs as a way of learning to cope with a very demanding game in which annihilation is often one or two turns of combat. There is a ton of stuff to stay on top of and, compared to WW II, the pace is blistering, likewise the firepower, weapon accuracy and lethality. The very first time I ever screwed around with a QB, I lost 40% of my reinforced Motorized Rifle Company (BMP-3 Company with attached T-90AM platoon) in two withering turns. Naturally, it was the vital tank force which got clobbered, leaving me with a greatly diminished force of powerfully armed eggshells on flat ground with Abrams and Bradleys on dominating terrain above them. That, was with Bradleys and Abrams firing on the move as they dashed for cover, too! I hit a few of them, but my force was so savaged I simply quit the game, reeling in shock. So shattering was this initial outing that I found myself wondering whether I'd made a serious mistake in using scarce resources to pre-order the game, rather than waiting weeks for the CMBS Demo. What ultimately made me plunk down my very hard to come by bucks was not just getting this wonder ASAP and for less money than at general release , but also finally having a physical game manual and a separate one for CMx2 Version 3.0. That was money very well spent, despite the special tin being a letdown. 
 
My brain's been through an awful lot in the last few years, but even before, when I was able to keep no less than five CMx1 PBEM tournament games going, at the rate of at least a turn per game per day, I seriously doubt that brain would allow me to play RT now. I simply have no idea how that's possible, and I say this as someone who found Halo 3 more than adequate when it came to dealing with fast moving combat situations in a battle in which I had to handle exactly one unit consisting solely of my character. If you wish to play RT, then good on you. In closing, I wholly concur that vs human is the way to go in both QBs and generally. Humans are far smarter and more clever (and twisted) than the AI which, though brilliant compared to what we had under CMx1, still can't really attack effectively or operate in a fast breaking fluid environment. As far as I'm concerned, baby steps are the way to go, and I say this as someone who freely admits he hasn't yet mastered the equivalent of crawling in the game. Am, as the saying goes, not ready for prime time! I believe you'll do very well, though, and I look forward to reading about the fierce engagements you'll fight in the days, weeks, months and maybe years to come. Enjoy!
 
Regards,
 
John Kettler

just to mention that i shared the opinion of the OP regarding huge battles. it is kind of difficult to keep track of all units once you have full batallion under control. this is very valid for a first encounter with CM. when i started playing it was a nightmare to keep track of anything that went above two platoons. however, once you get more time with the game (playing we-go and not real time) things get more clear and easy to manage. it depends a lot on the mood. sometimes you just don't want to bother with full scale engagement.
 
the bottom line is, you need to get used to the game and once there you will get intrigued about large scale battles to overcome initial uncomfortable feeling you get atm.

Only you couldn't, really. To really keep a lid on a unit behind a hedgerow you need the intensity of an MG firing at one AS (and its neighbours a bit) for the whole minute. Spreading that out just means you're slackening everything off to potential uselessness. And contrary to movie depictions, MGs didn't saw back and forth spraying along a baseline, they fired bursts into a pretty narrow cone.

The ammo isn't "technically" lost, since it's "theoretically" still there on the 60mm units, probably slowing them down, to boot... But it has been rendered "beyond use" for you, which is effectively the same thing. It would definitely be good if the Acquire menu could ban the snagging of stuff you can't use, but that would need some checks on what other portions of the Acquiring element's Orgunit can use (you could, for example, have attached a "Specialist team" 81mm mortar to that company mortar section, so the 60s, while not being able to use the ammo themselves could be acting as bearers for their medium buddy). An improvement in the inventory system so that consumables can be transferred both ways would be most welcome. Any improvement in the inventory system would be good, from being able to specify how many rounds you want, to a scrollable unit ammo count pane would make what's an obvious afterthought/red-headed-stepchild feature significantly less frustrating. It's almost worse when you grab the wrong thing (SMG-less squads grabbing SMG ammo) by misclick.
Yeah, those mortar half tracks (the Germans have mortar trucks too) are a bit like the ammo bearer team in non-mechanised mortar teams.
I don't think the thread should be deleted (they don't do that very often), because it is an example of how this mechanic works (a counter-example, perhaps) which, in the case of someone searching for it, might help someone else.

Well it does. Ammo sharing only takes place within an organisational unit ("platoon", is often used as shorthand, but "whatever highlights when you click that unit" is a more practical definition, given the proliferation of sections and other such subunits) 
Good for you. 
I don't think it's crazy, as I'm going to try and explain, but a misunderstanding of what you're seeing.
First to check that you know the two mortars not mounted and not part of the halfie's orgunit are 60mm not 81mm, and there are no mortar round for them in the M4A1. The only 60mm rounds are HEAT for the bazooka.

This is where you're misinterpreting the numbers. The green unit info pane shows the number of rounds available to the mortar, not the number of rounds being carried. If you'd used "Acquire" to grab any 81mm HE, the number in white-on-black where the small arms ammo count is registered would have increased. While they're in the M4, that still shows 16. But since the M4 will share with them, the mortar could expend 88 rounds of HE.
 
That's because sharing only works over about 16m or so, so once the mortar tube (or the icon which represents the 'centre of gravity of the team', or whatever the game engine measures the relevant distance from) moves a couple of AS away, as seen in the video, the ammo from the half track is no longer available.
I hope I've answered that question.
For my next trick, I'll have a go at answering the question of the disappearing ammo. Shakier ground here, but I'm basing it on the fact that you've highlighted the non-mortar-platoon 60mm mortars in the video to show something about them, and postulating that those are the ones you loaded on and Acquired mortar bombs from that disappeared. I am guessing that you grabbed 81mm shells for them. These wouldn't appear in the green "unit info" pane, where it shows "available ammo", because the unit can't ever use them, not having and never being able to get, an 81mm mortar. They aren't visible in the white-on-black unit ammo count area, because they are already carrying as many different types of ammo as can be displayed in that small, un-scroll-barred-because-scroll-bars-are-not-useful-in-the-interface-honest (yes this is a hobby horse of mine) display area, in the same way as you might not be able to see the white-on-black count for WP for the 81mm, even though you know they've got 'em because they're there in their "available ammo" count on the green info pane.

I don't think so, since this is all, as far as I can tell, working as intended, though obviously not intuitively to the new guy.

If the enemy surrenders before you press your major assault, especially in a campaign setting, you should be rejoicing. It means you don't have to lose any more troops who won't be there in following scenarios. It means you prep work for the assault was so efficient and effective that you beat him without having to closely engage him. The AI does't often surrender soon enough, IMO; the thresholds are somewhat obscure, but as Panzersaurkrautwerfer says, they're never in a state that could negatively impact your imminent control of the whole map, they'll just inflict a few more incidental casualties before you gun 'em down. Pointless nurdling.

It's one of the things that always drives me nuts about other games.  The enemy is done.  They've got maybe a tenth of my remaining forces, I'm on the decisive ground and still in pretty good shape, but no, victory is not secured until I have gunned down every remaining vehicle crew/surviving assistant MG gunners/mail clerks.  It's a bit abrupt though, like we're still at this point of "I'm about to kick his teeth in" then suddenly poof, battle is over gg.
 
In some sort of alternate reality CMBS, it'd be neat to give some incentive to losing well.  Like perhaps surrendering is wrong, but instead having a condition to move forces off the map after certain conditions are met, and to that end if you can pull enough forces off the map deny the enemy a major victory/perhaps even force a draw. 

In terms of Javelins available, there's about one launcher per rifle squad.  I'm not sure how many are available per each different flavor of Cavalry unit (IBCT, SBCT, and ABCT Cav looking dramatically different), but ABCTs had two per platoon in 2011 at least.  
 
Round allocation is a bit different, but the CMBS 3 or so missiles per launcher is well within the reasonable loadout, especially for US forces expecting armor.
 
Re: Topic.
 
Yeah. This isn't an RTS, we don't need to "nerf" things that are authentic.  The rarity price exists to keep folks from filling up on King Tigers in the world war two CMs, or keep APS Abrams from rolling around by the dozens, but for equipment that is simply available as a squad level weapons system, and has been for some years, I don't think you could do more wrong by adjusting to make it less common because we're trying to keep QBs "fair."
 
Also as an addendum, the "cheap and plentiful" Russian Army is a bit of a myth at this point.  As posted earlier there's no commanding size difference between the forces, the US Army has about 550,000 active duty personnel, but with mobilization can surge to a little over a million.  The Russian Army stands at something like 1 million active on hand by available positions, but in practice is closer to 700,000-800,000.  While it is certainly larger, it is no longer at the point where it can across a broad front simply plow enemy forces under, and especially given the inclusion of NATO forces, and the Ukrainian military in the CMBS scenario, likely has something we could call parity in numbers to NATO/UKR forces in theater.  
 
The gap between US equipment and Russian equipment is something the player has to close, (and much the same going the other way, with I feel one exception*).  Doing it in a "gamey" way is marginal.
 
*The US reliance on fixed wing aircraft  for air defense is poorly modeled.  Right now you're stuck with either "Russian jets are not available" or "Russian jets can bomb without any real opposition."  I'd like a way to model air interception during the game, so as to allow a more realistic limitation on CAS vs CAP covered forces, without simply having no CAS available at all.  

I disagree with any TO&E changes that would sacrifice realism for balance. I am fine with changing the QB points for balancing H2H, but scenario designers must have the option to create realistic battles if they want to, however imbalanced they may be. The common solution for a scenario with imbalanced forces would be to distribute the victorys points accordingly: in CMSF, the Coalition usually had superior everything, but the scenarios were still difficult due to a huge penaltiy for taking casualties. I see no reason why concept could not be applied to CMBS.

I agree on the fact that there are many javelins available for US troops.
 
There was some discussion about this already. First of all it's Worth to note that the next patch will bring quite many changes to the point values of units in QB purchase, so any discussion  would be more worth it after the release, not right before..
 
Anyway, I belive that the main problem is the common availability of the javelin asset within US troops, in reality. If that's the case this is well modeled. At the same time I would also reduce the quantity of "free" javelins available on the vehicles, especially considering that no russian active protection system is capable of intercepting them.
For example: you might discard the presence of so many RPG V2 within russian infantry, but if you'll ever play a close-quarter battle against US troops you'll see how powerful is the russian infantry thanks to so many RPGs, not to mention the ability to set up very powerful close-quarter ambushes. On the other hand there are other sort of imbalances, just think about air support and anti air assets. The russians in current game have a potential absolute control over the sky, they have powerful and varied airborne assets, they have missile and combined missile/gun anti-air assets, they can shoot down any plane/helicopter or drone, at the same time the US army has no anti-Aircraft asset (but for the manpads, which is inferior to a complex weapon such as a tunguska) and are not capable of shooting down drones. Couple this with the ability to use precision artillery strikes and you get a very powerful combination that the US side simply can't use (or at least will risk/have difficulties to). That's another form of non-balance.
 
But all of this is about "balance" and this game is not balanced because it represents reality and a close as possible simulation. I understand that when it's down to playing quick battles against human opponents, you desire (and need) some balance (in terms of points), and that's what the next patch is indeed trying to bring us, we'll see how that works out.
Meanwhile it wouldn't be too hard to set up some simple rules in your quick battles, many people already do that, and they call these "house rules", for example, one of them may be: no use of active protection systems; or, you can give the russian player a % bonus of points when playing against the US. There are a few instruments we can use to tweak balance.

Then don't play it. Go somewhere else if you don't like the realism. I for one am sick of games claiming to be realistic and then dumbing down aspects for the sake of gameplay. That is not, and should not ever happen in CM. You want a game where ATGMs can kill hordes of Abrams and the T-90 is equal to or better? Play Wargame:Red Dragon. Luckily there will be no nerfing of the Abrams of Javelin in the game from a patch because the developers of CM strive to provide a realistic simulation. 
 
Thats the other point. Its a SIMULATION. Not a 'game.' How does gameplay even factor into a simulation? Aside from UI< controls, and eye candy, it doesn't.