WriterJWA

Well somebody is a real pleasant fellow. Yes is is true that I might have missed the point a bit since yes english is indeed not my native language and also because every time there is a talk on the forum about infantry engineers breaching minefields, wich you definitely can not do in CM games, since marking is not breaching in sense of clearing a mineless lane through the damn thing, there is immediately somebody popping up with the "Its not in scope of CM something something.." like literally every freaking time. Whole discussion on whether it might be reasonable to add the ability for engineers to breach minefields is just brushed aside without any consideration if the popular perception about the issue might actually be wrong. So yeah, I might be tad bit frustrated about the whole thing.
But there is still no excuse to accept such immature and completely insulting behaviour as your reply. Is this the sort of thing we want to see here on this forum? 
Last word on the mine issue: I am actually quite optimistic that we will eventually get at least mine clearing vehicles to both modern CM titles. And that is enough for me. 
-H1nd

known issue and previously reported.  All you need to do is click on the way point and hit blast and it will stay red.  If you search there is a previous thread on this.

Range is about 30 metres maximum. When it works, the LOS tool will be grey. Doesn't matter if there's a small rise in elevation or a wall, but I don't think you can throw over a building.
Here's Bil's page that explains it much better:
http://battledrill.blogspot.com/2017/05/battle-technique-throw-grenades-over.html
 

I hear that... I do. But while I recognize (and did so in the original post) that the engine poses certain limitations, there seems to be some base-line factors that are missing that fit with basic practices on the battlefield. I'm not asking for a look-see-smell replica of a battlefield. No one should want that. But I would certainly like it if the equipment and men behaved in ways that fit with battlefield psychology, modern (or historical) TTPs, doctrine, and the limitations of the equipment. This points to my earlier post about the minefields. 
Regarding the AAV/armor question, there seems to be this notion that just because a thing was frowned upon by the crew who has to fix the tread means that it wasn't done at all and shouldn't be by players. If I'm a platoon commander and I'm tasked with taking an enemy held compound with one entrance, and I don't have explosives, I am 12/10 going to ask my AAV attachment to create a breach in a place elsewhere than the enemy's principle direction of fire and he'd more than likely do it. The chief overarching problem in the attitudes toward this game, and I think what's at the core of the things that cause me to question its development, is that the men seem to fall second to the equipment, which is patently false. If it's between the possibility of an armored vehicle blowing a track or me losing guys trying to rush a fatal funnel of fire.... I'm risking the track. 
This game is trying to replicate what combat operations are like and then asks me to throw away tactics and techniques that are designed to preserve lives while accomplishing the mission. Bear in mind, I'm not over here in tears every time one of my dudes gets killed. That happens. But I do get a little ragey when I have to lose guys because the game has robbed me of tactical considerations that would be commonplace on the ground, and the forum largely justifies it as arbitrarily as "outside the scope of CM" or "if we did it then player would just take advantage of it." 

I've been playing Combat Mission since about 2002, when I discovered Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, and since then I've owned every CM title produced with the exception of Afghanistan. I think it's arguably one of the most engaging digital simulations of a tactical battlefield out there. It does a better-than-fair job modelling, in broad strokes, the principles of fire and maneuver, combined arms combat, supporting arms, and C3I.  
Having said that. . . There are areas where the game really breaks down in representing a lot of facets and attributes of the weapons and behaviors of troops on the ground. Here are a few examples I've seen:
The complete inability for spotters to call in indirect fire on point they cannot physically see. This is something combat arm officers and NCOs are taught to do as a matter of course. Calling in artillery fire on positions that are out of LOS can been done with somethings as simple as a grid mission and adjusted by sound. It's not ideal, but it can, and has, been done. I should be able to call in fire behind hedgerows at any time regardless of its position. The only detriment is the loss of accuracy. (As an example, this lack makes a scenario set in the Hurtgen Forest all but impossible to represent accurately.) The inability for engineers to search for minefields ahead of their discovery by tripping them. Engineers should be able to attempt to clear a lane through a suspect minefield at any point in the game, not just when a minefield is discovered. There are far too many scenarios in all the modules that show minefields in the briefing only to rob the engineers the agency to deal with them. That's remarkably unrealistic. (This is excluding flail tanks, of course.) There seems to be a misunderstanding of the toughness of armored vehicles. A 64,000 lbs AAV-7 or a Stryker, or other armored or even remotely armored vehicle, should not be burdened into changing direction when faced with a masonry wall. They might have to slow down, but they are not generally impeded by them. Infantry squads are remarkably inelegant with their fires. This applies more to modern combat, but squads given a marksman rifle should be able to detach that marksman to perform precision fires instead of the whole squad or team just blazing away haphazardly at targets. While suppression is important, aiming in a huge component to modern infantry fires. These guys are some of the worst marksmen.  Infantry should be "spot-able" in buildings. Troops are not static. Infantry attempting to spot their opposite brethren in urban environment should not have to expose themselves to fire just to find them. I can't count how many times I've had spotters looking at a town for great lengths of time to find nothing, only to uncover a large troop formations in the buildings once I expose myself. I'm not suggesting it's easy to spot troops in built-up environments. It's certainly not. But it's not binary, either. Dumb grenades. In once scenario I had a squad below the rise where a German squad sat with an MG blazing away at friendly troops. They were well within grenade range, but they could get an LOS to the squad do to the shape of the terrain. In order to kill that squad I had to basically charge my guys, and lost a few in the process, when in reality a volley of hand grenades should have been enough to disrupt the Germans. But I couldn't throw them because I couldn't see them. In another examples, a Marine squad was working up on a house where a Syrian squad sat. They were able to get to the house undetected due to the lack of windows on three sides of the house. However, because I couldn't do something as brainlessly simple as throw a grenade into the window n the fourth wall, I had to rush into the house the hard way... And lost two guys before the Marine recon squad broke and ran into the open where they were summarily executed. This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly. In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued? These are just a few of dozens I've seen. While I recognize there are limitations in programming that might make some of this challenging, here is my plea: A lot of this could be alleviated with getting a better understanding of combined arms warfare, a better understanding of the limitations and attributes of the weapon systems, and how troops operate and behave in the field. Just reach out to Marine Forces Systems Command, or even one of the Marine divisions, or contact the U.S. Army Training and Education Command or one of its combat divisions and see if there are field manuals that help better explain how these work. Ask to talk to combat officers and engineers and artillerymen to get a better feel for their capabilities in combat--what they can do and what they can't. While there are lots of merits to this game, there is an equal amount of what seems to be pure fantasy (both in the game and in the forum) over what actually happens on battlefields--how long things, how attacks and defenses are planned and executed, and a whole host of other tactical considerations. Contact their public affairs folks and their unit historians; I have no doubt in my mind you would be given reasonable access to make a better game. You will undoubtedly find them remarkably receptive and open.
Please understand, I love this game. I wouldn't have spent time writing this if I didn't care about it in some way. It's just frustrating to see a game *this close* to getting it right, only to toss it away. Just my 2c... 
Thanks for indulging me. 
 
 

I've been playing Combat Mission since about 2002, when I discovered Combat Mission: Beyond Overlord, and since then I've owned every CM title produced with the exception of Afghanistan. I think it's arguably one of the most engaging digital simulations of a tactical battlefield out there. It does a better-than-fair job modelling, in broad strokes, the principles of fire and maneuver, combined arms combat, supporting arms, and C3I.  
Having said that. . . There are areas where the game really breaks down in representing a lot of facets and attributes of the weapons and behaviors of troops on the ground. Here are a few examples I've seen:
The complete inability for spotters to call in indirect fire on point they cannot physically see. This is something combat arm officers and NCOs are taught to do as a matter of course. Calling in artillery fire on positions that are out of LOS can been done with somethings as simple as a grid mission and adjusted by sound. It's not ideal, but it can, and has, been done. I should be able to call in fire behind hedgerows at any time regardless of its position. The only detriment is the loss of accuracy. (As an example, this lack makes a scenario set in the Hurtgen Forest all but impossible to represent accurately.) The inability for engineers to search for minefields ahead of their discovery by tripping them. Engineers should be able to attempt to clear a lane through a suspect minefield at any point in the game, not just when a minefield is discovered. There are far too many scenarios in all the modules that show minefields in the briefing only to rob the engineers the agency to deal with them. That's remarkably unrealistic. (This is excluding flail tanks, of course.) There seems to be a misunderstanding of the toughness of armored vehicles. A 64,000 lbs AAV-7 or a Stryker, or other armored or even remotely armored vehicle, should not be burdened into changing direction when faced with a masonry wall. They might have to slow down, but they are not generally impeded by them. Infantry squads are remarkably inelegant with their fires. This applies more to modern combat, but squads given a marksman rifle should be able to detach that marksman to perform precision fires instead of the whole squad or team just blazing away haphazardly at targets. While suppression is important, aiming in a huge component to modern infantry fires. These guys are some of the worst marksmen.  Infantry should be "spot-able" in buildings. Troops are not static. Infantry attempting to spot their opposite brethren in urban environment should not have to expose themselves to fire just to find them. I can't count how many times I've had spotters looking at a town for great lengths of time to find nothing, only to uncover a large troop formations in the buildings once I expose myself. I'm not suggesting it's easy to spot troops in built-up environments. It's certainly not. But it's not binary, either. Dumb grenades. In once scenario I had a squad below the rise where a German squad sat with an MG blazing away at friendly troops. They were well within grenade range, but they could get an LOS to the squad do to the shape of the terrain. In order to kill that squad I had to basically charge my guys, and lost a few in the process, when in reality a volley of hand grenades should have been enough to disrupt the Germans. But I couldn't throw them because I couldn't see them. In another examples, a Marine squad was working up on a house where a Syrian squad sat. They were able to get to the house undetected due to the lack of windows on three sides of the house. However, because I couldn't do something as brainlessly simple as throw a grenade into the window n the fourth wall, I had to rush into the house the hard way... And lost two guys before the Marine recon squad broke and ran into the open where they were summarily executed. This brings me to another point.... I think this may be in the process of being addressed, so forgive me if I'm repeating a soon-to-be-fixed flaw, but troops don't helter-skelter into random and dangerous directions when they come under fire. More than likely then go prone and remain in place. I can't count how many times I've had troops bolt into the open when they come under fire only to die needlessly. In one scenario I had a squad in a field of tall grass and they came under fire. The only guys who were able to return fire were the guys who were kneeling. The rest couldn't draw an LOS and therefore couldn't fire. Were their squad members mute? Could they not tell their fellow soldiers the direction of fire and relatively range? Where was their squad leader? Why wasn't some form of ADDRAC statement issued? These are just a few of dozens I've seen. While I recognize there are limitations in programming that might make some of this challenging, here is my plea: A lot of this could be alleviated with getting a better understanding of combined arms warfare, a better understanding of the limitations and attributes of the weapon systems, and how troops operate and behave in the field. Just reach out to Marine Forces Systems Command, or even one of the Marine divisions, or contact the U.S. Army Training and Education Command or one of its combat divisions and see if there are field manuals that help better explain how these work. Ask to talk to combat officers and engineers and artillerymen to get a better feel for their capabilities in combat--what they can do and what they can't. While there are lots of merits to this game, there is an equal amount of what seems to be pure fantasy (both in the game and in the forum) over what actually happens on battlefields--how long things, how attacks and defenses are planned and executed, and a whole host of other tactical considerations. Contact their public affairs folks and their unit historians; I have no doubt in my mind you would be given reasonable access to make a better game. You will undoubtedly find them remarkably receptive and open.
Please understand, I love this game. I wouldn't have spent time writing this if I didn't care about it in some way. It's just frustrating to see a game *this close* to getting it right, only to toss it away. Just my 2c... 
Thanks for indulging me. 
 
 

Funny how this was major part of all the training we did in FDF Combat engineers, to get through minefields, in combat, in matter of couple of minutes. But yeah.. totally not in scope of Combat Mission.  And we did not even have any fancy vehicles to do that...

My engineers had no problems marking most of the mines within 10 minutes. Afterwards, at scenario end, I had  approximately 75% of the minefields 'marked'. The hard part is not in identifying the minefields -  it's in what you're going to do to bypass them. You have options.
Sounds like this is your first time encountering mines. Don't panic, let your engineers to their job. Then either call your 155s or pick a route through with the proper lead vehicles. Something that won't get skittish at the mere sight of an RPG...
One last hint - your infantry won't trigger AT mines.

So.... Can anyone offer perspective on how to take Bigonville in scenario 2 of the Courage Conquers campaign? It's impossible to spot troops in any of the building and they don't fire unless their are exposed troops. Am I supposed to run my two companies in there to get hammered, or blow away each building with arty and tank fire?
I ask because German FJs apparently have such great fire discipline they literally shoot at nothing else but human targets.... No tracks, tanks, anything.

I'm super happy to hear this. I've lost a lot of dudes when they get up and bolt from cover during a shelling. Same for MG fire.

I’m pretty new to the game, so I play mainly Quick Battles so I can get the hang of it before moving on to the more challenging scenarios. I tried a few out and knew I needed to really know the game well to be able to succeed. 
I go with Basic Training difficulty level. I usually set the Germans (regular Wehrmacht) at “regular,” “fit,” “normal” motivation, and 0 leadership. For Allied I’ll go “veteran,” “fit,” “high” motivation, and +1 leadership. Again, just to learn. I’m not giving my guys much of an edge, and I ensure the Germans are well armed. I usually do companies opposing one another with supporting arms.
My observation thus far is that the Germans are some crack troops, and the Americans can be really skittish. 
It’s proven very difficult to get the Germans suppressed, for instance. I had a game earlier where a .50 cal belted suppressing fire on a Sturm squad for a good five minutes - accurate enough to inflict one casualty - but the unit was still not suppressed. Just an example. I’m not a great player yet, but when firing at a squad from two directions well within effective range, they should keep their heads down. 
Conversely, the Americans tend to freak out when they take popshots and panic immediately when taking indirect fire, so much so that I can almost write them off once the first enemy spotting round comes close. 
Are the Germans designed to be really tough? did play against SS once, who were insane,  but Wehrmacht seems to be pretty elite, too. Are the Americans inherently weaker?
I’d be interested to hear the insights of more seasoned players. 
Anyway...I’ve been looking for a game like this since I was a kid spending Saturday mornings with Close Combat IV.  Thanks! Keep up the good work. I got CMFB and CMBN so far, and will no doubt end up with other titles 

Full disclosure - I’m friends with WriterJWA in real life. I’ve been watching this and his other topic on scenario design for a while. 
I’m also really new to the game, having only played CMFB for a couple months and CMBN for much less. I started out with a few campaigns and scenarios and vacated them, although I plan to once I really master the mechanics of the game and the interface. Quick Battles are a great way to train, and there seems to be more freedom to accomplish your mission however you see fit as the commander. 
In the few campaigns I did play, I did badly. I suspect it’s because I’m so new to the game, but I got the sense that they were *very* difficult. Some are meant to be (Sing Sing comes to mind). In any that I attempted though, I think the clock made most of the difference. There was little time to be careful - to probe, work the flanks, and prep - adding a degree of pressure for which I can’t quite grasp the real life parallel. 
An idea: Would it be possible to make the factor of time something more open ended but with consequences for follow on missions? It’d be something like a penalty or bonus system for subsequent missions. For instance, Col Joe Snuffy lollygags his way through the first town. If he takes more than X hours he misses link up with his reinforcements for the next mission, or he sacrfices an off map arty battery for the next mission because they’ve got another tasking. This would perhaps reflect the real life consequences of time on the battlefield. (Please keep in mind that this novice suggestion without fully grasping what’s possible to accomplish on the scenario design end) 
Anyway...This is one of the most fantastic games I’ve ever played. It is really close to an all-out combined arms simulation. I appreciate the work that’s gone into it 

Not at all. I completely recognize that the level of casualties and methods of fighting between WW2 and Iraq are different. One was a conventional war, the other was an unconventional war. My issue isn't with the volume of casualties I take, it's how I'm forced to take them. 
If I make a decision to push a platoon onto a position that puts them at risk of enemy fire and I take casualties, then fine... I earned that. But if I'm required to take casualties because the scenario designer puts me into a position where I have no alternative, as the commander of the forces on the map, to take casualties at the beginning of a scenario, or by way of limiting the scope of the terrain or time to where I have no choice but to take casualties, then I have an issue.  
This is more of an issue with campaigns, which are designed to reflect continued operations over a period of time. Regarding the Carpiquet scenario I have issue with, the designer said "The entrenched positions with the 88 battery from the second battle would be exactly behind your deployment zone IRC. I had the problem of deciding whether to try and recreate that or not. I chose not to at the time." If I'm the battalion commander, that's exactly the kind of terrain I'm going to deploy in before launching an attack, or perhaps just behind it in case it happens to be an enemy on-call target. Instead, the battalion is placed a 2-3 hundred meters in front it in full view of the enemy. I didn't get to choose that position, and yet I'm playing their commander, and for that lack of agency I take casualties needlessly. 
I think a lot of this comes down to a simple (and fully understandable) lack of appreciation for what goes on when planning an attack--where and how coordinating measures like phase lines, lines of departure, limits of advances, and boundaries, are set, as well as the proper placement of assembly areas (which are typically just behind the line of departure out of range of enemy small arms). All of these things were used during World War II just as much as they are now. These things don't matter as much at the platoon level, so scenarios at that scale can get by without considering them, but when you reach the company, team, battalion, task force, and brigade level, which is what Carpiquet, Courage & Fortitude, Montebourg, and other campaigns that cover larger operations are trying to represent, then it becomes important. 

So this is in relation to a topic I posted just before Thanksgiving.... There may be some mild spoilers ahead, but nothing I think is show-stopping.
Just recently I was playing The Lions of Carpiquet. For those who don't know it, it's a challenging campaign that covers a difficult battle in the Commonwealth sector west of Caen. It's one of the few that really gives the player some serious time to make decisions on how to approach the objectives and neutralize the Germans. The first two scenarios offer the players three hours to complete them; the second, I believe, is somewhere in the two-hour range. I was able to make good use of reconnaissance and artillery spotters to locate and eliminate German positions with supporting arms and shape the battlefield to make the best use of my infantry in the attack, and my armor when it was needed. I even got the chance to clear a mine belt with flail tanks, which was really cool to watch. I took casualties, but they felt reasonable to the firepower and deployment of the Germans and the unforgiving nature of the terrain (it's almost pancake flat throughout!). I remember thinking "Finally! I'm able to actually to use recon, tactics, and mission planning in a way that maximizes mission accomplishment while minimizing casualties. Scenarios 2 and 3--the first big moves of the campaign after the recon mission--were tough, but they're engaging. 
I had started this campaign after dropping Courage & Fortitude at around the Razorback Ridge scenario. I had managed through scenarios two and three, but once I hit Razorback Ridge I just gave up. It's an absurd scenario... Not because its a necessarily unrealistic piece of ground to have to take, or an unrealistic enemy, but because the scenario conditions themselves--the time and map limits--make it an over-the-top "lesson" in taking casualties just for the sake of doing it. Once I began Carpiquet, it gave me an opportunity to contrast between the two and learn a little bit about what frustrates me about the average scenario design, and learn a bit about myself as a player.
Here's what I learned: I hate taking casualties. But not just any casualties. I hate taking casualties that are forced on me by the conditions of the game itself and the scenario, NOT the conditions related to the enemy and the terrain. If I take casualties because I misread a piece of ground I can generally stomach that. I made the mistake. What I can't stomach is when I have to rush through a scenario because I have to take two or three objectives over a kilometer away, through a defender, with a rifle company or so, with less than an hour on the clock. I get frustrated near to the point of yelling whenever the morale model forces a squad to effectively commit suicide by running into the open, or worse, toward the enemy (which has happened more times than I can count), when they break and run from perfectly good cover when under fire. I want to throw my mouse through a window when a tank crew bails out of a perfectly good taken when they get nervous only to get cut down by an MG on the outside. 
Some of these are controllable, some of them are not. At least not yet. The engine is great, but flawed. But I'm confident that at some point those flaws will inevitably be worked out with enough time and programming. It's maddening beyond belief, however, when I have to take casualties over something completely avoidable within a scenario. . . . Or with how it's design.
Case in point: When I reached the fourth scenario in Carpiquet was was deployed with two companies, in the open, looking at a ruined, but dense town filled with Germans. I hid both companies, plus my mortar assets as best I could where they were placed. I pre-registered my mortars on likely areas with troop positions and called in my air where I felt it would do the most good, all as recommended in the scenarios briefing. Then I hit the Red Button.
Within the first five minutes my on-map mortar section was obliterated. A German sniper had popped four or five guys from one platoon. Mortars and MGs from within the town were raking another. I had no way of avoiding any of it. 
So I restarted the scenario.
On the second go, I replotted my fires and hid my guys. This time I avoided using the on-map mortars as that might be what was bringing down the mortars--perhaps they had been spotted as they fired. Instead I used my air and off-map 107mm to handle the prep. I pressed the Red Button. . . . And within five minutes the results were about the same. 
What I quickly realized was that the scenario, unlike the previous two, doesn't give the player the option or room to deploy in any other way. The Germans in the town were able to spot the Bren carriers and call in fire on that position. I have no way of repositioning them or getting them out of the way until after the scenario begins, and they happen to be carrying a good bit of my 81mm ammo. They're big fat targets and I have to just take whatever comes from because of it. I have to take casualties not because I failed to move my guys, provide cover for them, lay down suppression, or any other mistake. I have to take casualties because the scenario essentially forces me to take them. I don't get to have a say. Just press the Red Button and die. 
I tried the scenario two or three more times with different variations. The results were about the same each time. I was disappointed, but it's something I see time and time again.
Aside from some aforementioned issues with the program itself, which will undoubtedly diminish over time, the game borders on a simulation of combined arms combat, and yet when it comes to scenario design it often seems like the game inevitably gets boiled down into a "gamey" reenactment of history, or worse, a war-movie replay, that basically remove all the agency from the player and force decisions that are tactically unwise and nowhere even remotely realistic and in keeping with the tactical and operational considerations of the type of conflict the game seeks to simulate. Why even move soldiers on a map if all I'm supposed to do is send them to their death without cause?
It's not my intention to necessarily hammer the designer of the Carpiquet campaign, or any campaign. I get that it's a difficult and often thankless job. I only use them as examples in order to pose a question: Why is it necessary for me to take casualties outside of my own errors? What am I supposed to be learning? Why create a simulation that represents the tactical landscape of modern warfare, then limit the tactical options for the player to a binary choice?
 
 
 

So this is in relation to a topic I posted just before Thanksgiving.... There may be some mild spoilers ahead, but nothing I think is show-stopping.
Just recently I was playing The Lions of Carpiquet. For those who don't know it, it's a challenging campaign that covers a difficult battle in the Commonwealth sector west of Caen. It's one of the few that really gives the player some serious time to make decisions on how to approach the objectives and neutralize the Germans. The first two scenarios offer the players three hours to complete them; the second, I believe, is somewhere in the two-hour range. I was able to make good use of reconnaissance and artillery spotters to locate and eliminate German positions with supporting arms and shape the battlefield to make the best use of my infantry in the attack, and my armor when it was needed. I even got the chance to clear a mine belt with flail tanks, which was really cool to watch. I took casualties, but they felt reasonable to the firepower and deployment of the Germans and the unforgiving nature of the terrain (it's almost pancake flat throughout!). I remember thinking "Finally! I'm able to actually to use recon, tactics, and mission planning in a way that maximizes mission accomplishment while minimizing casualties. Scenarios 2 and 3--the first big moves of the campaign after the recon mission--were tough, but they're engaging. 
I had started this campaign after dropping Courage & Fortitude at around the Razorback Ridge scenario. I had managed through scenarios two and three, but once I hit Razorback Ridge I just gave up. It's an absurd scenario... Not because its a necessarily unrealistic piece of ground to have to take, or an unrealistic enemy, but because the scenario conditions themselves--the time and map limits--make it an over-the-top "lesson" in taking casualties just for the sake of doing it. Once I began Carpiquet, it gave me an opportunity to contrast between the two and learn a little bit about what frustrates me about the average scenario design, and learn a bit about myself as a player.
Here's what I learned: I hate taking casualties. But not just any casualties. I hate taking casualties that are forced on me by the conditions of the game itself and the scenario, NOT the conditions related to the enemy and the terrain. If I take casualties because I misread a piece of ground I can generally stomach that. I made the mistake. What I can't stomach is when I have to rush through a scenario because I have to take two or three objectives over a kilometer away, through a defender, with a rifle company or so, with less than an hour on the clock. I get frustrated near to the point of yelling whenever the morale model forces a squad to effectively commit suicide by running into the open, or worse, toward the enemy (which has happened more times than I can count), when they break and run from perfectly good cover when under fire. I want to throw my mouse through a window when a tank crew bails out of a perfectly good taken when they get nervous only to get cut down by an MG on the outside. 
Some of these are controllable, some of them are not. At least not yet. The engine is great, but flawed. But I'm confident that at some point those flaws will inevitably be worked out with enough time and programming. It's maddening beyond belief, however, when I have to take casualties over something completely avoidable within a scenario. . . . Or with how it's design.
Case in point: When I reached the fourth scenario in Carpiquet was was deployed with two companies, in the open, looking at a ruined, but dense town filled with Germans. I hid both companies, plus my mortar assets as best I could where they were placed. I pre-registered my mortars on likely areas with troop positions and called in my air where I felt it would do the most good, all as recommended in the scenarios briefing. Then I hit the Red Button.
Within the first five minutes my on-map mortar section was obliterated. A German sniper had popped four or five guys from one platoon. Mortars and MGs from within the town were raking another. I had no way of avoiding any of it. 
So I restarted the scenario.
On the second go, I replotted my fires and hid my guys. This time I avoided using the on-map mortars as that might be what was bringing down the mortars--perhaps they had been spotted as they fired. Instead I used my air and off-map 107mm to handle the prep. I pressed the Red Button. . . . And within five minutes the results were about the same. 
What I quickly realized was that the scenario, unlike the previous two, doesn't give the player the option or room to deploy in any other way. The Germans in the town were able to spot the Bren carriers and call in fire on that position. I have no way of repositioning them or getting them out of the way until after the scenario begins, and they happen to be carrying a good bit of my 81mm ammo. They're big fat targets and I have to just take whatever comes from because of it. I have to take casualties not because I failed to move my guys, provide cover for them, lay down suppression, or any other mistake. I have to take casualties because the scenario essentially forces me to take them. I don't get to have a say. Just press the Red Button and die. 
I tried the scenario two or three more times with different variations. The results were about the same each time. I was disappointed, but it's something I see time and time again.
Aside from some aforementioned issues with the program itself, which will undoubtedly diminish over time, the game borders on a simulation of combined arms combat, and yet when it comes to scenario design it often seems like the game inevitably gets boiled down into a "gamey" reenactment of history, or worse, a war-movie replay, that basically remove all the agency from the player and force decisions that are tactically unwise and nowhere even remotely realistic and in keeping with the tactical and operational considerations of the type of conflict the game seeks to simulate. Why even move soldiers on a map if all I'm supposed to do is send them to their death without cause?
It's not my intention to necessarily hammer the designer of the Carpiquet campaign, or any campaign. I get that it's a difficult and often thankless job. I only use them as examples in order to pose a question: Why is it necessary for me to take casualties outside of my own errors? What am I supposed to be learning? Why create a simulation that represents the tactical landscape of modern warfare, then limit the tactical options for the player to a binary choice?
 
 
 

I don't care. Fight me. 

I don't care. Fight me. 

Yeah, I get where you're coming from. An option to turn off the time crunch would be nice, though. It makes sense for their to be a time restriction in Market-Garden, given the context of the campaign, but even then it seems a little tight (I'm thinking of the third scenario/first CW scenario as an example). 
I think much of my concern comes from the way spotting works as it relates to time and planning. There are a lot of in-game aspects that increase the need for extended recon. For instance, players can't call in an indirect fire mission on targets/areas they can't see with a spotter once the scenario begins (aka: a "grid" mission). It's as if maps don't exist in WWII (the drones in CMBS were a god-send! One wonders where the Piper Cubs are in WWII scenarios...). In-game spotting in general isn't as elegant as it is in real life (or rather, much more prohibitive), so players have to come up with creative means of spotting targets without losing troops or needlessly exposing their position, which takes more time. Sometimes I'll do things like "open up" a tank at long range for a moment just to draw infantry fire and expose targets. Not exactly an inspired way to exposed enemy positions, but often there just isn't a better option. 
Also, I think the morale system begs for more time. Because troops can break and run in all sorts of directions (even to their own detriment), or fail to fire back at hidden close range targets, it makes recon all the more important. Entire squads can be neutered with one short range burst. I've had squads break and run from cover into open ground only to get cut down by enemy further away. When I learned these hard lessons, it made planning, recon, and preparatory fires all the more important. This is especially important in campaigns, where losses can accrue from one scenario to the next. 
I do get it, though. . . . It's a tough thing to balance. But the time-hack should definitely be optional. Or maybe even given a point spread, just like with bonuses for taking under a certain number of casualties. Beat the scenario under a certain time and the player is awarded a bonus. Just my 2c...

I don't care. Fight me. 

I've had some great results with direct missions from both 60's and 81's against just about every AT gun I've targeted. BUT it does take a lot of rounds sometimes. In fact just yesterday I was able to knock out two AT guns with just one 60 tucked behind bocage. I notice when I attempt the same thing from an FO with an indirect fire mission, the results aren't nearly as good and I usually have to repeat the mission a few times.    
 
As an aside... and not to hijack the thread... but why aren't their bonuses for repeat missions on the same target? In RL all an FO has to say is "repeat mission" over the radio and more rounds fall on the last target, all without the laborious adjusting...

This isn't an in-game tip, but I find it helps me a lot. 
 
I like to take a screenshot of the entire map from a top down perspective, then open it in paint and start drawing out a battle plan. I mark key terrain, masked avenues of approach, and overwatch points for both my side and the enemies. It doesn't have to be fancy or all that coherent, as long as you know what it means. Here's mine from a PBEM I'm playing now.
 
 
 
I've used pink for my forces, blue for his. This is from before the battle actually started, so the blue is just speculation. However, because I took a look at everything carefully, my predictions were spot on. As a battle goes on I'll update the map with enemy sound and visual contacts, ect. 
 
The important part is identifying lines of sight, movement paths and overwatch positions. 

akd,

I have played the game, but nowhere nearly as much as I'd like to be able to. When I get CMH sorted out, I'll be PBEMing with SLIM, too. Nor does it follow that simply because I don't have much play experience it means I can't attack game issues from the standpoint of military analysis, known real world events, veterans' accounts and other means. I have clearly stated my views many times on what should be doable in CM: everything our forebears could. See, for example what I said on pushing ATGs and the case I made thereto, as well as the carefully documented arguments I've mounted in support of on-map Indirect fire from weapons such as the leIG 18 and the sIG-33. Also, I did much the same thing which helped make the case for reining in the previously unholy abilities of tanks to instantly spot and kill infantry close assaulting, something BFC subsequently did, to the considerable benefit of game realism. And since when do you get to decree I have no right to state my views? As long as I do so within the parameters of the Forum Rules, I can and shall. Best get used to it.

Regards,

John Kettler