Ithikial_AU

My view of it is just like that shown by @BFCElvis (except for @Juju's interface, updated by @Ithikial_AU of course, highly recommended but I understand why John doesn't use it).
Just wondering, can you go back a few turns and try it again with the recent intel?  Might not help in the PBEM but perhaps we can all learn something from it.
 

It was.  Hope you enjoy. Read the briefings, push hard and don't be scared to go a bit unorthodox with your panzers to get the job done - especially in Mission 1. Mission 2 & 3 largely use the same forces.

No it's the October crossroads assault in Holland and best of my knowledge hasn't been recreated by anyone in the community in CMFB. Not sure it would be the best scenario being a bit of a one sided turkey shoot. Would be interesting if in game you could have the pixeltruppen of Capt Winters alone firing shots at the German company in the game without the German TacAI gunning him down in two seconds.  

Small armoured group tasked with reccing the main body’s avenue of approach takes a tactical pause in a small unnamed (on their map) Polish village.


 

A cautious move along the main road and an observation halt is taken  - the tank commander cautiously scanning the surrounding terrain for any signs of enemy activity.


 
Enemy activity is spotted in the next village overlooking a key bridge. An SPW zug, over watched by their armour, make a swift dash cross-country to a small ford to outflank the enemy position. 
 

They cross the ford without incident.

 

Hi folks latest update to the CM Career Recorder is here... this is for the modern era games and now includes Cold War.
Thanks to @Ithikial_AUand @IanLfor putting these together.

Ithikial’s Combat Mission Career Record System Modern Era (Includes Cold War) (thefewgoodmen.com)
 
 

@Bootie - Manual upload as administrator?

@Bootie - Manual upload as administrator?

The game series is unique because some elements are designed to feel the same allowing other areas of focus, especially the history, to shine through. An MG42 will always 'feel' the same regardless of the family the game is with but the subtle differences in different formation TOE's, OOB's and terrain in each theatre are allowed to be the focus.
DLC is the wrong phrase for the modules IMO. I've always described them as 'old fashioned' expansion packs similar to the norm with older games before the internet was as prevalent.
I've been directly akd's crosshairs only once and he won. He still scares and amazes me with some of the nit-picking detail he finds primary evidence for. I think he has a time machine and hops back and forth between the 1940's and the present.  

The game series is unique because some elements are designed to feel the same allowing other areas of focus, especially the history, to shine through. An MG42 will always 'feel' the same regardless of the family the game is with but the subtle differences in different formation TOE's, OOB's and terrain in each theatre are allowed to be the focus.
DLC is the wrong phrase for the modules IMO. I've always described them as 'old fashioned' expansion packs similar to the norm with older games before the internet was as prevalent.
I've been directly akd's crosshairs only once and he won. He still scares and amazes me with some of the nit-picking detail he finds primary evidence for. I think he has a time machine and hops back and forth between the 1940's and the present.  

The game series is unique because some elements are designed to feel the same allowing other areas of focus, especially the history, to shine through. An MG42 will always 'feel' the same regardless of the family the game is with but the subtle differences in different formation TOE's, OOB's and terrain in each theatre are allowed to be the focus.
DLC is the wrong phrase for the modules IMO. I've always described them as 'old fashioned' expansion packs similar to the norm with older games before the internet was as prevalent.
I've been directly akd's crosshairs only once and he won. He still scares and amazes me with some of the nit-picking detail he finds primary evidence for. I think he has a time machine and hops back and forth between the 1940's and the present.  

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

Philip K Dick - Great Science Fiction author.  Some works from his books include Blade Runner, Man in the High Castle, Minority Report, Total Recall...

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

PKD? It's the logo from the original classic 'Deus Ex' game from the year 2000. Still one of the best games ever made IMO.

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

As a scenario designer both for some community and stock releases I've always gone towards controlling unit placement myself for a number of reasons. Even when I've had the initial intention to leave it to the player, I've always tended to take back that control before a scenario was finalised. The following reasons generally always come up:
1) For historical scenarios it allows me to place units approximately where they commenced the engagement (where known) to ensure the player has the most historical experience. It also prevents the player from exploiting history books and hindsight if they know something about the battle. For example, if I allow the player to reposition their Tiger II to the top of a hill with great overwatch & LOS/LOF, it will have an adverse effect on the rest of the scenario and make it more a-historical.
2) It allows me to ensure that the patterns around initial spotting of opposing units is as intended. For example, there are no stray pot shots both from player and AI units after a few seconds of hitting the red button for the first time if I expect the player to conduct recon etc.
3) Most of the CM player base plays single player. I don't want the AI to reposition units that may mess up AI plans. (As outlined above)
4) It ensures an equal starting point for all players. This ensures that testing is easier and more informative as everyone starts with the exact same situation to solve their problem (the scenario) from. Maybe this is a residual from years of playing hex wargames where it was common for scenarios to specify where every unit started.
4) (Sometimes) The starting map is quite restrictive for one side or both in where a force can reasonably deploy. If one side is restricted due to terrain you generally don't want the other side to have a huge advantage of letting them reposition all their units as they see fit - particularly if they know where the enemy is coming from. For example, a historical engagement started with the tank heavy force moving down one road surrounded by heavy forest on both sides. This makes opening up deployment to the player somewhat redundant given the restrictive terrain.
Everyone is allowed their opinion on the matter on what they think is best. QB and free for all engagements, go at it I say. But scenarios, particularly historical ones tend to have (good) boundaries that work as a starting framework for designers to adhere to. The above is what I discovered worked for me over time making multiple scenarios created from scratch. Still disagree with me? No problems. The best way to change community practice is to get into the editor and start making and releasing scenarios.

A good post.
With the GWOT, it seems that Australia rarely sent more than a battalion and a handful of aircraft to overseas areas of operations let alone a full brigade of troops to take and occupy terrain alongside their allied partners. I've suspected logistics constraints, effectively not having a system in place for supporting ongoing larger scale deployments, also played/dictated Australia's contributions over the last few decades.
<-- Has not served a day in uniform (if you don't count cadets in high school ) so freely admit I'm an armchair general happy to be schooled.

Ok … so let’s start with what ChuckDyke said:
“Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”
He posted a video about the Battle for Binh Ba in South Vietnam 
Let’s see what I said in response:
“Binh Ba was hardly Hue, Fallujah, Berlin or Stalingrad though was it?  This was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties. The Australian Army lacks the size and experience to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village so MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
For those not familiar with Binh Ba, this is a contemporary map.  The grid squares are 1km so the total mapped area is 4km². 

Note that it does not fill that area.
Moving on then to the Australian Army’s own doctrinal publications as an example:
According to Land Warfare Publication-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments,
The urban environment is classified into the following zones:
a. the city core,
b. the core periphery,
c. commercial ribbons,
d. residential sprawl,
e. industrial areas,
f. outlying high-rise areas, and
g. shanty towns
This is just one reason I stated that Binh Ba was not an urban environment as it only has one of those characteristics.  The same publication cites the battles for Fallujah, Grozny, Hue and Stalingrad in its examples of urban combat.  That publication makes one reference to Binh Ba as the preface to Chapter 7 – Building Clearance as follows (my bold):
The battle was triggered shortly after 8.00am when a Centurion tank travelling through the village was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Initial intelligence suggested there were two Viet Cong platoons in the village. From the strength of the fire met by the company sent to deal with them, however, it was apparent that the enemy presence was much greater. There followed several hours of devastatingly fierce fighting. Twice tanks swept through the village, returning enemy fire by blowing open the walls of the houses. Then each house was cleared room by room by the infantry. By nightfall the village was still not secure and fighting continued in the area the following day. When the battle was finally over the enemy toll was 91 – at a cost of just one Australian life and eight wounded.
The battle of Binh Ba posed the perennial problem of the war in Vietnam – how to separate the enemy from innocent civilians. The occupation of towns and villages by the Viet Cong was a deliberate tactic designed either to ambush the relieving troops or to cause the Australians to use an excess of force.
Now ChuckDyke initially said (my bold):  “Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”  My response said:  “MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
Taking my argument that the Australian Army lacks the capability to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village let’s go back to LWP-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments.  Its Combined Arms Scenarios section (Chapter 8 refers) shows a Company Team attack in the context of a Battlegroup.  The example imagery map for that scenario has the Battlegroup boundary covering three streets and 22 buildings.  Hold that thought …
The Australian Army is basically capable of deploying a division of three combat brigades.  This would be war of national survival stuff as its more recent deployments where the usual premise of ‘to deploy one, you need three’ comes into effect has been to deploy nothing bigger than a brigade.  Australian Army brigades sit in the three to four battalion range.  Being generous let’s say four battalions which gives you four battlegroups.  Keeping one in reserve, because it is good practice to have one then according to the example in the Australian Army’s official doctrine on urban operations, a brigade can conduct an offensive operation comprising nine streets with 66 buildings.  If we go for the war of national survival then, assuming one brigade is the divisional commander’s reserve, then that is 18 streets and 132 buildings.
Here is a map of Hue where some of the calculations above have been applied to illustrate the point:

The image below is the zoomed area that I have marked as a green rectangle in the overall city map.

So in simple terms, according to the Australian Army's own doctrine, a brigade can conduct an attack on a small corner of a city.
My point about the capabilities of the Australian Army is based on having served in it and knowing what it can and cannot do which I think the argument presented above demonstrates.  It is no more an insult than saying the Australian Army cannot deploy a parachute battalion.  Why?  It doesn’t have one.  Facing up to reality and knowing your strengths and weaknesses is an important discussion to have.  Nations/militaries that overestimate their own capabilities and don’t challenge them generally end up coming second in wars.  I recall that the British Army claimed (and bored everyone to death) that they were the masters of limited war/COIN because of Borneo, Malaya, Northern Ireland and the killer tactic of wearing berets/soft hats only to end up having to eat humble pie in Basra.  There are few people in British military circles and veterans who served there who disagree with the assertion that Basra was an utterly miserable performance on the part of the British Army.  One of my friends was killed there by the way so I have little interest in denigrating the sacrifice of those whose lives were changed there.
On then to impugning the courage and sacrifice of veterans … Recalling that ChuckDyke said that my comments would not be welcome in an RSL (Returned Services League – a veteran’s association) I pointed out that I have been a member of it for 10 years.  Later ChuckDyke changes his position on the RSL and decides that it is not such a good thing after all because of the way it treated Vietnam Veterans.  A claim I don’t dispute, it is well documented, and it was not the organization’s finest hour.  Anyway – I think we can agree that his position on the RSL is inconsistent.  Whatever the argument, my membership subs help Australian veterans and while serving in the Australian Army I collected in Brisbane and Sydney for Legacy ... a veteran’s charity.
For my part, I have been and continue to be a member of the RSL.  I am also a member of the Royal British Legion … you’ve guessed it … another veteran’s association.  This month I have given the equivalent of three full working days (in addition to my day job and my hobby ‘job’ for Battlefront) collecting for the Poppy Appeal plus assisting with the organization of, and attending, a cross laying ceremony at the town church as well of course as attending Remembrance Day itself and participated in the RBL committee meeting at which this most important appeal and other issues affecting veterans were discussed.
One of those issues was our disgust that the County level RBL have decided that organizing the ANZAC service at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery on Cannock Chase is ‘too difficult.’  My branch is now taking it on and I am one of the lead members in this initiative.  The majority of the Commonwealth dead there are New Zealanders.  A country whose army I have never served in but the people commemorated there are fellow ANZACs.  Most of them died of Spanish Flu which the more ungenerous might say wasn’t a war death.  However, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission rightly designates them as war deaths and, incidentally, many of them had fought some hard actions on the Western Front before being brought back to the UK.  Hardly the behaviour of someone with no respect for the fallen.
Nowhere in the phrase "this was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties," do I denigrate veterans.  Non-descript village is a fact is the number of casualties and participants on both sides. 
Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.

Please no. BF have a habit of predicting locations of conflicts before they happen when they make a modern title and Taiwan is a little close to home.  

Honestly, the easiest way to do this would be to get a license to turn this book series into a game.

Effectively WW2 humans vs modern era alien space lizards. It's effectively CMSF NATO vs all nations in the WW2 families.
Honestly, I'd love a sci-fi combat mission the style of 'The Expanse' or 'Firefly'. Human only... some central alliance versus the outer rim rebels or some such.  But I know it's a bigger pipe dream than CM2 Africa.  
 

First day of Operation Market Garden; US airborne secure drop zones and eliminate enemy flak units...
(From Mission 2 of the Road to Nijmegen campaign, using plenty of mods and ReShade which really elevates my enjoyment of this timeless classic of a game. So many great little details amongst the chaos.)