[How do you advance over open terrain?]

The terrain issues are exacerbated by a key capability of the Coyote and Fennek being absent:

It makes recce much easier if instead of sticking your neck out to see what's going on, your vehicle does.

Quote

Its been said that CM is optimized for company+ size engagements. That's generally enough men to be able to absorb casualties and keep on fighting but not so many that you lose track of your units. If you play too small a single fire fight can ruin your day. If you're purchasing QB units with limited points you might want forego expensive exotic equipment in favor of a bigger headcount. 

I maintain that with how PCs have come along, battalion-sized engagements should be the goal for QB maps and scenarios. A battalion has the tools necessary to complete a mission independently. In fact, regarding Shock Force 2, having being part of a Canadian Battlegroup myself any CO that tried to send elements out independently in a large scale force-on-force conflict would be sacked.

I understand that there are engine limitations, but there were engine limitations on water and hit decals too. Right now there is not room to maneuver or disperse the kind of force needed to accomplish many missions. Giving room to breathe, conduct real recce and maneuver rather than trying to take a town with a platoon or conversely pushing a Mech Battalion through a 2000m x 2000m frontage would be an improvement.

In the modern titles this is especially important because there are several maps where there is hardly anything outside of the minimum range of the AT-3.

[Back on Tracks Campaign is now available!]

On 1/11/2020 at 10:55 AM, Lethaface said:

Nobody else have the c2 / radio problem with the dutch forces? 

Yes, I'm having that as well.

I think C2 across all titles could use some revisions. Modern radios, ones that are rated for distances much, much larger than CM maps are failing even with point-to-point LOS (which you don't need for many modern military radios anyways)

[The Year Ahead Bone Post]

20 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

PS - The inclusion of the PZ.II Luchs in ALL of the WWII titles always amuses me, it was only ever intended to be an interim type and only one hundred were made.....IIRC only 4th & 9th Pz. Divisions had a full complement in their recon battalions.

The Americans only encountered Tigers 3 times in North West Europe, yet they are in the base game of CMBN and only 11 Elefants were present throughout the Italian campaign yet we have those too in CMFI.

To their credit @Battlefront.com have started to round out the OOB and TOE of the less glamorous units. CMFI with RTV is truly comprehensive, exempting of course anything to do with the Italians - The Italians before the armistice are not up to par with the other forces across CM titles, the RSI and Co-Belligerents are totally absent as are the partisans.

Still, each title has improved the depth of the TO&E in leaps and bounds. The improvements in one title make it over to the others in packs and modules, which I appreciate. I might wish existing campaigns and scenarios got touch-ups to factor in on-map Flak, or flamethrowers, or whatever else is new, but overall I can see a sharpening attention to detail.

[New Module coming For Blitzkrieg]

This past year I had the pleasure of meeting a veteran of the Battle of the Scheldt for his hundredth birthday. As much as the Battle of the Bulge draws public attention, what the 21st Army Group accomplished was nothing short of amazing. With amphibious vehicles now in-engine, I'd like to see Commonwealth forces through the end of the war. For so many of the public, the war ends at Normandy when I think the real accomplishments of the Commonwealth armies came later.

While the OOB and TOE  will probably be similar to most Commonwealth forces, The Belgian & Netherlands Independent Brigade Groups liberating their homelands is fascinating and fertile ground for scenario or campaign designers. 

The Czech Armoured Brigade Group is also often overlooked and beyond besieging channel ports, liberated Prague.

Finally of course, there the Commonwealth Special Forces that we have long wished for. A possible bonus of this is the possibility for a troop pack adding these forces to Battle for Normandy and Fortress Italy.

I would liken it to how Italy is often a forgotten theatre, both in the public mind and in the wargamming community. Any chance to break from the tired chronology of Western Desert > Normandy > Bulge is welcome by me.

There is a great Osprey title on the subject:

Victory 1945: Western Allied Troops in Northwest Europe

37 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

If I'm not mistaken, I think Operation Varsity is covered in the battlepack for CMBN, though I would always welcome an additional campaign or set of scenarios. 

Personally I really hope we see some coverage of the crossing of the Rhine. Having a scenario/campaign that covers both the Rangers amphibious assault across the Rhine would be great, especially now that CM simulates amphibious vehicles. DUKW's anyone? That and some coverage of the Bridge at Remagen would be cool as well.  

Market Garden (Sept 44) is in CMBN, Varsity was the airborne drop supporting the Rhine crossing in March 45.

 

[Heavy Artillery vs. AFVs]

There's been some lively discussion of this over the years. I think generally there can be improvements in mission killing AFVs with indirect fires. Radio antennas, anything stowed externally, optics, tracks, and so on are not going to react well to being hit by fragmentation. Within the AFV near misses will obviously effect crew morale but might also damage sensitive equipment or otherwise cause end of mission for an AFV.

The more modern AFVs have more sensitive optics, sensors and electronics as well so while the Abrams may not be a smoking wreck, it will be severely degraded in effectiveness.

[Some Tactical Advice Needed - Defending against an AI attack]

I guess this is a backend problem in the editor regarding how AI plans work but too often QB attacks fail because the AI is not able to utilize their forces effectively and the map becomes a jumble of scattered and disorganized units without C2 links. The best way to overcome this is to either give the AI overwhelming numbers or superior hardware.

I'd rather like to see a Heer Grenadier Battalion 44 accomplish the kind of objective on the kind of frontage you would expect it to. Something as simple as "Here is a battalion, AI. Please conduct recce, use a company to establish a base of fire, push up the weapons company and then advance with 2 companies up and 1 in reserve".

I know that is unrealistic because I've tried to set AI plans and I know how tricky it can be but my dream is being able to plug in forces and the AI determines BEEP BOOP BATTALION ATTACK, HEER, 1943 and knows what to do.

[BATTLE DRILL - A CM Tactics Blog]

@Bil Hardenberger, I was wondering if you've touched on using Battalion Fire Support? 

It's a great title by Osprey. I've really enjoyed their tactics series, but I'm struggling managing Battalion assets in CM. I was hoping for something that puts the lessons of this Osprey title into practice.

[The Year Ahead Bone Post]

I had really thought the tide had turned on the hardware obsession that used to plague wargaming.

For all of the StG-44s, King Tigers, Jets and camouflage, the Germans lost the war. The Germans themselves accomplished more with the lowly Kar98k, Panzer 38(t), Bf 109E and feldgrau than they ever did with any amount of wonderweapons.

The Red Army that flew the flag over the Reichstag or the Allies that smashed German army after army evidentially had good enough equipment to win the war.

 

["That's one vast valley!" - hard-edged, realistically scaled map]

I just wanted to say that this thread is the gold standard of what I am looking for in future scenario and QB maps. The latest batch of large maps for RTV were good, and I think a step in the right direction. I want "huge" maps, sure, but I want them to have what you would reasonably expect to find in an area of 4000m x 4000m.

Black Sea really suffers for this where on one map of a few thousand square meters there is a dam, several large bridges, a prison, an airport, and a "town".

Realistic terrain plays so much better than the Disneyland Main Street USA. I think someone here made the comparison to mini putt courses and they are exactly right.

[An Expanded C2 System]

Command and Control

Quote

The concept of moving and acting on information is called Command and Control, or “C2” for short. Arguably, C2 is the single most important aspect of a combined arms force operating in the field. Its ability to pass information up and down the Chain of Command largely determines that force’s opportunities and the options available to it.

As it stands now, I am generally happy with how C2 works in CM. I think this is a flexible system that conveys how units communicate and how that connection is maintained in action. As a refresher, from the manual:

Quote

Visual Contact (units within LOS of each other)

Eye Contact - close proximity

Eye Contact - distant

Audio Contact (units able to hear each other)

Voice Contact

Radio Contact

Crucially, C2 does three essential things:

Quote

There are three primary benefits of good organization and communication: spotting of enemy units, calling for support, and maintaining discipline.

The Problem Of Frontage

However, playing Red Thunder in anticipation of Fire and Rubble, I've noticed that with the current system, some units - Russian and Italian units in particular - cannot communicate over their assigned frontages due to lack of radios. I agree that these units did not possess many radios, and obviously that imposed limitations compared to German and especially American formations where radios were plentiful.

Quote

The more types of C2 links units have, the better chance they have of maintaining connections. Just remember that not all C2 methods are of equal quality. Range is quite important because the farther away units are from each other the greater the chance they will experience breaks in communications. The inherent fragility of the method is also important since some are inherently more robust.

All units have the opportunity to establish Eye and Voice Contact, but to do so means keeping units fairly close and in plain sight (LOS) of each other. These are the most reliable, robust forms of C2 possible. Unfortunately, from a tactical standpoint, having units bunched up is generally not a good idea, nor is it even necessarily physically possible.

Radio Contact is the most basic technological means of overcoming these problems, however, radios are tricky things to operate effectively as distances increase, and good radios are quite expensive. CMx2 includes two major types of radios: small handheld radios, and large backpack radios.

In CM this often leads to deploying Russian and Italian formations in open terrain or bunched up to facilitate communication, or covering the proper frontage without C2 links which leads to greatly reduced effectiveness, and in Iron mode a huge headache.  However, since these are the frontages assigned historically, there must have been a way to command and control dispersed formations.

Solutions

The crux of the problem is this -  forces without radios were capible of spotting of enemy units, calling for support, and maintaining discipline over that frontage wheras in CM right now they are not. Doing some reading on this matter, I quickly discovered that rather than simply not communicate, units of all nationalities used runners and field telephones, where possible as well as coloured flares and smoke. There are obvious downsides to these methods of communication compared to those already in the engine.

Quote

But radios were expensive and (compared to today) rare. While the US forces made a deliberate effort to try to provide radios usually at least down to the platoon level, many German formations only possess a radio for the main Company HQ, or have one reserved for specialized Forward Observers. Some forces with more outdated technology, such as the Royal Italian Army, did not have any radios in their infantry formations at all, instead relying on pre-established field telephones, and messengers carrying written orders for communication.

Players will probably learn quickly that paying attention to where the radios are on the battlefield is going to provide a crucial element on the road to victory. Without a radio nearby, that group of on-map mortars is pretty much limited to only firing at targets within sight. Without a radio, that platoon commander who loses sight of his Company CO is effectively out of the loop with higherups.

I am not arguing that they were able to complete the three essentials tasks of C2 as well as radio-equipped units, but there were methods of fufilling the 3 essential C2 tasks within a battalion over an area of 1000m x 1000m to 2000m x 2000m without radios.

Field Telephones

Using a radio is more reliable and preferable to field telephones that are vulnerable to enemy fire, especially shellfire. Wire takes time to set down and that task is usually accomplished by dedicated signalmen who are in the HQ and Service units abstracted in CM. Notably, Field Telephone links to FOOs are already abstracted in game. This C2 method is the most promising improvement as information is shared over a field telephone much the same way as a radio, it would simply be a new class of audio contact with slightly different mechanics. Field Telephones spot, call for support and maintain disciplene exactly as radios do. In game terms this method of communication presents a problem with regards to the level of abstraction.

On-Map

On the more granular end of the spectrum, one solution would be having signals teams with "Telephone Line" Special Equipment and the order "Deploy Wire" , an order working similar to Mark Mines or Linear Fire Mission initiated drawing by a glowing red C2 link (compared to the green fire mission line) on the map. The team would then move along the route of this line and upon reaching the end point a C2 link would be established between the HQ at the point of origin and the HQ at the destination. I'm not sure of the best way to do this as far as the speed, pauses, taking cover etc.

The rationale for the red line comes from the Engine Manual:

Quote

By using the hotkey ALT-Z, C2 links will be represented on the battlefield by lines connecting units to their parent HQs. A bright red link indicates a strong C2 connection, usually both visual and audio. A slightly darker red link indicates a weaker C2 link, which is usually usually just visual contact. A dark link means there is no C2 contact, and the unit is out of command with it’s parent HQ.

Obviously this is not without risk:

Abstracted

A method of abstraction would be to create a C2 link between HQs that have not moved for a certain period of time. This could be done either automatically or through an order. After the appropriate amount of time, the unit panel would show Audio Contact - Field Telephone. In terms of implementation this is no different from moving units having the radio links disrupted as now, only with a longer time to reestablish the link. This is a simple and effective way to simulate Field Telephones, does not require the player to babysit linesmen, and allows for the echelon units to remain abstracted.

Pre-Existing Links and Vulnerability

In either case, I believe that at the start of the scenario, all HQs should be connected by Field Telephone. For prepared and even hasty defense this is an obvious part of occupying a position. In fact, I would suggest that the defending side in attacks and assaults be able to link teams or sections to the Field Telephone, representing OPs. Gun positions (on-map Artillery teams and their HQs) and bunkers should also have Field Telephone links.  For the attacking side, an attack would usually not cross the line of departure without firm communications links. Since CM simulates events after units have departed from the form up point, it makes sense to have the comms in place.

Regarding the vulnerability of lines to fire, I would suggest that a certain level of shell impacts (or maybe craters of a certain size) in action squares containing Field Telephone lines have a chance to cut the line. This chance would be lower for the defending side in assaults, where the line would reasonably be buried. Once a line is cut, either a team would have to be sent out in the granular model, or it would take time to reestablish the link in the abstracted model.

Artillery Comms

Field Telephone links between artillery teams and their HQ and the artillery HQ and higher (On-Map Battalion HQ for organic artillery) should be established upon the completion of deploying the artillery. This is a routine part of arriving on the gun position and the battery is not considered to be in action until each gun has a link to the CP and the CP is plugged into the net. The main advantages of this improved C2 system for artillery is that On-map artillery is more responsive to calls for fire, and the dreaded "out of contact" no longer appears when the battery should reasonably be in communication with FOOs and the supported HQs. The other advantage is that realistic dispersal of on-map artillery units can be simulated. Gun positions are sited and deployed specifically to reduce vulnerability to counterbattery fires. Even when CB threat is low, spacing for a howitzer battery is usually 150m x 150m.

Runners

Runners were often used where field phone and radio links could not be established. This form of communication had numerous downsides:

1. The runner could be killed
2. By the time the message was received the situation may have already changed
3. The first two problems also applied to any reply sent by the recipient.

As far as CM goes, I think there is room for debate over whether runners pass the test of what constitutes a reliable C2 link. The information is not relayed in real-time, and may not even be useful in game terms. Orders like "attack that hill" are sent from the player directly to units and do not have to originate at Battalion HQ, relayed through Company HQ and passed down to the platoons. What about the three C2 tasks in CM?

Spotting By Runner

Because of the delay in using couriers, any spotting reports by runner would have to be the silhoutte and question mark for previously spotted units and sound contacts. Written messages would be reasonably accurate at the time they are sent, but couriers relaying messages by voice could be expected to make mistakes. Either way, this is not a good way to pass along spotting information. Even if a runner left Platoon HQ with the message "there is a tank at that crossroads", since there is no guarantee the tank will be there when he arrives at Company HQ, Company HQ would have the unknown contact icon, and dissenimate that up to Battalion and down to the other Platoons. Still, it is better than nothing.

Calling For Support By Runner

Calls for fire would have to be unspotted because issuing corrections by runner is not feasable.  However, runners might be a way to call for an emergency mission with a long delivery time. The HQ would place the target point and wait for the runner to give that information to the next highest HQ. The quality of that HQs link to higher would be a factor in the delivery time. In cases where the Platoon and Company are connected to Battalion only by runners, this is a very long wait and there is an argument to be made that calls for fire can only be passed by runner up one rung of the chain of command. The fall of shot should be about the same as for any emergency mission because where couriers might be at risk for "a game of telephone", I would assume a written message with a grid square reference is provided.

Maintaining Discipline By Runner

Quote

Lastly, maintaining C2 is important for keeping unit cohesion intact. Units tend to get jumpy when they don’t know what the friendly units around them are up to, or where their superiors are, or what the enemy might be trying to do at that moment. Without C2, the imagination can run a bit wild, so to speak, and the unit may be imagining the worst scenario. Perhaps all its buddies withdrew and forgot to tell it to pull back? Maybe the HQ was wiped out and nobody higher up knows about those tanks coming down the road, and therefore no help is on the way? Well- disciplined units hold up better under these circumstances, of course, but every unit has its breaking point. If it has contact with its fellow forces and feels supported, things are less stressful.

I believe that this is the most effective use of messengers and where the stongest case can be made for their inclusion. Where there are numerous, glaring downsides to spotting and calling for support by runner, it is perfectly reasonable to be able to tell Battalion HQ "A Company has arrived on the objective" or for Company HQ to send a runner out to find where the hell 2 Platoon wandered off to.

Liason Vehicles

There might be a use for the many jeeps and light vehicles that accompany HQs as they were and are used as liason vehicles. Vehicles carry messages much further and faster than runners. I would rather not draw move orders for the Battalion XO team in their Jeep to the company HQs and back to Battalion HQ but simulating or abstracting this role could make taking the Kubelwagons, Humvees and Jeeps along with the infantry battalions useful. During unit selection, maybe the light vehicles could have an on-map/off-map option similar to artillery. On-Map liason vehicles would act like they do now - mostly as transport for HQ teams. Off-Map liason vehicles could increase the speed at which C2 links are created by runner between HQs so equipped. 

On-Map

I don't see a way to do this on map that isn't a huge headache. Scourage of War has a great messenger system for the Napoleonic Wars and American Civil War but having courier present on-map in CM adds a tremendous ammount to the players workload for no real payoff. Tracking individual soldiers moving around, or worse ordering them around is just not a good idea when abstraction can accomplish the same goal, better.

Abstraction

Similar to field telephones, an abstracted runner system would fit in nicely with the existing C2 systems without adding to the player's workload. This would be done by a weak C2 link (dark red) being created between stationary units and HQs after a certain amount of time. The time could be calculated from how long a troop using the Quick command would take to cover the distance to the HQ. In formations with liason vehicles, this speed could be increased. Possibly it could be how long it takes to get to the HQ and back, to establish two-way communications. This C2 link could never be better than weak, and would have restrictions to the spotting and fire support available, as mentioned above. Crucially, it would allow for the green icon on the unit panel indicated links to the chain of command and the diciplene that comes from that.

Visual Signals - Flares and Smoke

Pyrotechic signals were widespread in WW2 and are still in use today. These signals allow for communication without radios over a wide area. In WW2 titles and modern titles with Electronic Warfare conditions, this is crucial. Visual signals share some of the downsides that runners do - they are not really reliable two-way C2 links, so much as they are ways of communicating some information and providing some commands. The limitations are:

1. The recipient must see the signal
2. The enemy may also see the signal
3. Weather and visibility conditions generally greatly impact this form of communication

Beyond being limited in what you can say with smoke or a flare, your message is subject to the wind and the enemy can see it too.

In terms of fufilling the three C2 tasks, I will use the WW2 pyrotechnic signals on the Eastern Front as an example:

Quote

Defence/retreat, Recon, Attack, Air spotter, Targeting, Misc, Flare
Red Army: Orange, Green, Green/White (Yellow smoke), Red, Red, Green/White (Yellow smoke), White
Germany: Red, Green, White (Yellow smoke), Violet, Blue (Black line), Orange, White

Spotting by Visual Signal

Marking targets by smoke is one of the best uses of pyrotechnics. This is different from calls for fire and a simple radio procedure would be "Enemy troops moving in the open, reference 100m south of red smoke". In game this could simply be a command similar to pop smoke or target smoke that deploys coloured smoke (as opposed to WP). One way this could work is that units with C2 links to the unit that deployed the smoke would get increased information sharing of enemy units within a radius of the smoke spotted by the originating unit. This would work somewhat like a TRP:

Quote

A special situation is the targeting of an enemy unit near a TRP (Target Reference Point). In CMx2, these double-function not only for artillery sup- port fire, but also as “ambush markers”. Soldiers targeting an enemy unit near a friendly TRP are much better at estimating the range correctly.

1. 1 Platoon has visual contact with 2 Platoon and A Co HQ.  
2. 1 Platoon spots enemy troops
3. 2 Platoon has not yet spotted the enemy, and the information has not yet been shared by C2 within A Co
4. 2 Platoon has light blue or grey LOS to the target
5. 1 Platoon deploys coloured smoke, either near the enemy or near a reference point that A Co and 2 Plt can see
6. Within a radius of the smoke, 2 Platoon now has improved spotting information on the enemy, and the bonuses that come with a TRP

Expanding on this, units without a C2 link to the originating unit could possibly still recieve spotting information and the TRP bonus if they have LOS to the smoke. The rationale for this is having a pre-determined signal such as telling the Battalion Fire Support units, let's say MG Company "If you see red smoke, keep an eye out". This would not be the same as having the reference information passed along to them so they wouldn't know to look 100m south of the smoke straight away, just to look in the area. Maybe they could get the vauge contact floating icons.

Signaling contact with the enemy by flare is straight forward. In terms of how it would work in-game, I'm not really sure since all units start the scenario stood-to and don't need to wake up or otherwise prepare for action. Possibly a flare on contact with the enemy would pass the vauge contact floating icons from the OP to all units that can see the flare. This would help make forward OPs useful even when they are beyond regular C2 links. Of course they would also have field telephones as part of a prepared or even hasty defense. Since flares do not take time to ready, they could be used by advancing scout teams to report contact without radios, and without waiting for a phone link to be established.

Calling for Support by Visual Signal

Very common and simple. The easiest way to do this would be to treat smoke as a temporary TRP with some limitations:

Quote

Target Reference Points are special points on the battlefield which have been “pre-registered” in advance for a support strike. This means that the exact location and distance to a TRP is known to both the spotter and the firing element.

Artillery strikes targeted near a TRP (within 50m) do not require LOS from the spotter, do not use or need spotting rounds, and have a near-zero preparation time (however, the “communication” time is unaffected, so don’t expect battleships or corps-level rockets to be on hair-trigger readiness due to a TRP).

First, The spotter is not the unit that deployed smoke, any grunt can throw a C8.  The smoke helps the FOO do their jobs, much like a TRP and like a TRP lets them fire at targets they can't see, from working off one they can -  the smoke. The idea is that in a slightly larger radius than the 50m of the TRP,  the spotter is able to target strikes even without LOS to the target, as long as they maintain LOS to the smoke. This is just a slight expansion of an already existing system:

Quote

Note: Spotters for indirect support weapons (as well as on-map mortars) are able to target areas slightly outside of direct LOS under certain circumstances, such as when firing indirectly over a tall wall or just behind the crest of a hill.

Unlike a TRP the smoke is not pre-registered so there would still need for adjustment. This is made easier because the location and distance now have a useful reference for the spotter and/or firing element/firing element HQ. The procedure is then to spot rounds onto the smoke, and with that registered, you simply adjust off and voila - you can hit targets you can't see from the OP fairly accurately. Preparation time and communication time would be the same as a regular fire mission.

In instances where the FOO can see both target and smoke, and ideally when they are close together (within the MPI or acceptable firing template for the given tube), smoke would simply allow for quicker adjustment of spotting rounds. It's much easier to make sure your rounds are impacting in a given dispersal around a column of orange smoke than an oddly shaped rock!

Flares could be used to call down FPF if a unit is being overrun. I suppose this would either trigger an emergency mission on top of the unit signalling, perhaps ahead of them, or on a TRP. Of course in this situation, TRPs already do most of the job.

Air Support and Smoke

This one is tricky because CAS is very different between WW2 and the modern titles and procedures vary between nations. Whereas NATO troops now can pop orange smoke an have an A10 deliver a gun run, being the air boss for Tempests in North-West Europe was a different story, and VVS operations were different even from that. 

Hopefully our resident JTACs and historicans would figure out implementation on a nation by nation, title by title basis. Generally, I would guess that smoke should shorten delivery times for air support or allow for requests for air suport from units that otherwise wouldn't be able to, maybe give a bonus for target acquisition and accuracy likea TRP. I'm not sure if this works for the roaming IL-2s and Stukas in Red Thunder, but I'm not sure how to get results from air support in that title anyway.

For modern titles, are NATO assets handled as stikes, FAC/On-Call CAS, Pre-Plan CAS, or General CAS? How do the Syrian Arab Air Force or Russian Air Force conduct CAS? I'd like to have a simple rule like "pop orange smoke or red flare and attack aircraft comes in" but it may not be that simple. For NATO in Black Sea and Shock Force 2, certain coloured smoke or even WP smoke (with C2 contact to the air boss in the case of WP) should be enough to get On-Call Aircraft on target.

Maintaining Discipline By Visual Signal

Visual signals can communicate simple messages between units and HQs. In a reversal of runners, visual signals are good for calling for fire and drawing attention to the enemy, but not very good at passing along information. In the WW2 example above, Defend/Attack/Recon can be communicated by visual signal, but the player is able to directly give these orders in CM. HQs signalling by flare or smoke when they have achived their objective could speed establishing C2 links with higher HQs by other means. The rationale for this is that at least now Battalion HQ knows to send out runners for the next set of orders and the runners and linesmen know where to go. Seeing smoke that indicates the platoon has arrives on the hilltop, while valuable is not exactly a C2 link with Company HQ by itself. 

Conclusion

The C2 system created for CM is generally fairly useful and robust. However, as CM expanded beyond Shock Force and Battle for Normandy, more forces have been added that lack radios.

In Fortress Italy, Italian Forces have a myriad of problems so C2 may have been overlooked. As CM has evolved, the Italian Forces in FI have been left behind, lacking AA and AT rifles, even though these weapons exist mounted on the AS.42 or heavy AT guns even though the Semovente da 90/53 is present, mounting the Cannone da 90/53. In a game spanning 22 months, Italy's 3 are an afterthought. Low morale and poor training for Italian troops probably go a long way to hiding how much the C2 system hurts them. An Italian battalion with unwieldy rifle squads, few radios and heavy weapons (even if the missing Italian equipment at the battalion/regiment/divison level was modelled) would not be a winning formation, even with its C2 links recreated. However, should CM go to the Western Desert, or follow the struggle between the RSI and partisans through the end of the war, any second look at Italian forces should include revisions to communication without radios.

The frontages on the Eastern Front and lack of radios within a typical Soviet TOE have shown the flaws with the existing C2 system. Unlike the Italians, the Red Army is the star of the show in a CM title, and historically a war-winning force. There are of course in reality several disadvantages to a lack of radios. However, because in CM communication over distances is simulated as "Radios-or-Nothing", to not have radios is to have no way to maintain command or control over a distance, which was not the case.  Red Army battalions in CM suffer from many penalties for operating without radios, when in reality a battalion would occupy a 2000m x 2000m footprint. Were their communications as good as that of the American battalions with radios? No of course not. They were able to spot enemies, call for fire and maintain diciplene over that frontage however, the three essential tasks of C2 .

The broken terrain of Belorussia, and presumably soon to come in Poland, East Prussia and all the way to Berlin make relying on visual contact over distances unfesable, and compressing units to establish the existing C2 links suicidal. Field telephones, an abstracted liason/runner system and visual signals will allow Soviet formations to operate as they should. Soviet C2 may have been rigid and inflexible, but it worked and did so without radios.

Finally, expanded C2 systems do not only aid forces without radios, they provide additional links and tactical possibilities to all forces. In the WW2 titles, the Western Allies and the Germans made extensive use of field phone and visual signals. Linking forward outposts by phone to HQ is valuable for the Germans who find themselves on the defensive, often in prepared positions. The ability to call for fire or air support with smoke was useful for the Allies and they advanced on all fronts. In modern titles, smoke indicating targets is a common practice for NATO forces, and in the face of Electronic Warfare, field phones provide reliable communications for Ukrainian, Russian, Syrian and NATO forces. A Canadian mortar battery, even in 2020 is linked to battery HQ by field phone.

 

[Minefield Size?]

It would be nice to have a tool to deploy minefields. Right now it involves so much clicking and mines start scattered all over the deployment area.

[Bug and stuff thread]

Regarding the SS in RTV: The September '43 formation, which I am taking to be the LSSAH only has a grenadier battalion and no regimental formations available with the exception of flak units. When the unit was sent to Italy did the regimental recce, artillery and engineers come along?

Under the scenario editor, Panzerjager and Panzerjager [armoured] with StuGs and Marders respectively are available but as the Waffen SS is only selectable as infantry only in QB they do not appear. If this is referring to the Division type, as is the case with France, it should be a quick fix to have those units and single vehicles appear under the infantry tab. This was one of the biggest improvements in RTV (as I mentioned in a thread under Shock Force 2) and I hope that this is applied more consistently within and across titles.

I would guess that the Waffen SS formations available from January '44 on are elements of 16 SS Panzergrenadier Division. In this case most of the regimental formations seem to be present.

However, in the light infantry gun platoon within the panzergrenadier battalion, in QB no 75mm ammo is carried as cargo in the platoon Opel trucks, whereas in the anti-tank platoon ammo is carried for AT guns by the platoon vehicles (Protze). Going deeper this seems to be more confusing because in QB ammo is carried for the AT guns but not the infantry guns, but in the editor the situation seems to be reversed and 75mm is carried by the infantry gun Opels, but absent for the AT platoon Protze for Pak 40, 36(r) and 38.

Despite being much smaller, the 250/10 carries much more 37mm ammunition than the 251/10. In fact, the 250/10 carries 4k more 7.92 rounds as well.

Finally, the Free French can equip M5 76mm guns as specialist teams, but not as part of a formation. Their Regimental AT company can equip 37mm or 57mm AT guns, as the US does but France does not have a Tank Destroyer [towed] formation available. I would suggest adding the M5 as an option for the Regimental AT company if this is how France employed the guns.
I cannot for the life of me make sense of the French OOB in the Italian Campaign, so I'm differing to those who know better.

Guns available as specialist teams but not as formations is pretty common across FI and all titles, and my biggest problem is not that I'm a hardcore grog per se, just that this means that no vehicle transported ammo is available. In the case of the 7.5 cm le.IG 18, (e.g Waffen SS, Sept '43) this often means fielding a gun with 10 HE rounds as opposed to 59, no small difference.

 

[Bug and stuff thread]

On 1/23/2020 at 7:33 PM, Shadrach said:

Thanks for the information! But surely it would not apply to this thing? I mean if it takes 20 secs to assemble the loads then why would it take five minutes to pack it up again?

Then again, the main issue is not the packup time, but the gun's inability to fire at things it has LOS to. I suspect the terrain slope where the gun is deployed plays a role in this? The packup time is just a huge nuisance when it's unclear where the gun is able to fire from.

I can't speak to this particular weapon, but I know firsthand for mortars, once the tube is hot and the baseplate is firmly in the ground, it takes a while to be able to break it down and strap it on your pack. Packing ammunition and fuses back into the tubes, disposing of charge bags if using separate QF ammo, those can all take time as well. I'm not saying that is true for this artillery piece in particular, but anything hot or removed from packaging on the gun position is going to take longer to move.

Regarding the LOS, I believe I've seen the muzzle flash originate from lower down on the model somewhere down on the tripod. I'd have to take another look but this mismatch might explain the issue.

Finally, I found a very interesting write-up on Elefants in Italy. Kudos to the OOB team for getting this so right. I can't imagine trying to figure out the rarity of 11 vehicles in an entire theatre of operations!

[Bug and stuff thread]

Limbering a gun can take a while depending on how dug in the spades are. Usually we fire one round at full charge to get the spades dug in deep when setting up the gun but it can take a lot of shovel-work and manpower to roll the gun out of that hole.  Also a pack gun probably takes a while to break down into loads.

[I like neither parapets nor foxmounds.]

Fortifications need a fix. They're annoying to place to the point of widespread un-use in QBs, and the objects themselves and how troops interact with them could be improved. I can't imagine the poor scenario designers right now working on The Seelow Heights.

Can you imagine trying to place this in the editor? In QB?!

[A Better Fortification System]

37 minutes ago, Bulletpoint said:

I agree with your points about how it takes a long time and many clicks to move fortifications around, but I am personally not happy with the way the fortifications actually work in the game, once they are placed. It's been discussed in detail before in many other threads, so I don't want to derail this one. Just wanted to chip in and say the whole fortification aspect of the game could do with an upgrade.

I thought about that when writing the post and I'd rather have better placement of existing fortifications now than perfect fortifications in Engine 5 or CM3.

I hate the hassle of foxholes to the point of not using them for anything larger than a platoon sized battle, so how effective they actually are is often irrelevant.

[A Better Fortification System]

First off, let me say that for the most part I'm satisfied with the fortifications in the CM series. I think in scenarios the fortifications are great (although some Osprey titles could be more closely consulted in designing historically appropriate set-ups for given nations, formations and terrain). In QB, the AI defenses are generally okay, although with obvious and understandable limitations.

However - the placement of player fortification in QB is tedious. It would be time-consuming enough to manually place obstacles, but they are scattered all over the map!

Not only do I have to place all the wire by clicking individual pieces, but unlike units which are intelligently grouped at the bottom of the map, I have to pick the wire out from the clutter of the mines and other fortifications spread everywhere, and either place one piece at a time and then find the next or place them all into a pool where at least they occupy the same place on the screen, though I still have to place them, move the camera from where I was looking, click a link and then place it.

An infantry team occupies one foxhole, with a section occupying between 2-4 so to have just a company dug-in results in a huge amount of foxholes scattered all over the map, and sometimes an hour or more of set-up. It's very very frustrating and time consuming.

I think there are a few ways this could be improved:

1. The first, and I think single most important would be to place foxholes like CM1 titles and SPWW2. When defending units are placed in the set-up phase of a QB, their foxholes are automatically placed under them.
2. For trenches, mines and wire, ideally a system like SPWW2 would be used where fortifications other than foxholes would be purchased on the purchase screen, as now but would not appear on the map initially during the set-up phase. Instead, they would be placed with a click, maybe from a tab like air support and artillery. This keeps everything organized, there is no clutter on the map, and no on-map item needs to be located to place a fortification.
3. As above but with click and drag placement of wire and trenches. From the tab suggested above, a "place line" option would appear. This would act exactly like linear fire missions - On-map the cursor would appear with the "strike target" cursor used for artillery maybe with the fortification symbol in the middle rather than the crosshairs. Clicking would draw a line, terminated again with a cursor reading "set end point". Once the line is set, trenches and wire objects would be placed along the line by the game. If this can't be done during the set-up phase, placing the lines and having the fortifications appear during the start of the battle would still be great, so long as the glowing lines remained viable after placement, like when selecting the FOO of a linear fire mission so the general layout of fortifications would be visible while placing units.
4. If these suggestions are too difficult, at the very least grouping fortifications by type and placing them together at the  start of the set-up phase would be a big improvement over the random scatter.

[The Year Ahead Bone Post]

I'm linking one of @JasonC 's amazing posts of Soviet Doctrine for 3 reasons:

1) Could scenario designers please take his analysis and recommendations under consideration for Fire and Rubble? He intelligently points out force compositions and plans that would make scenarios more true to life.

2) If possible, could the existing scenarios for RT be revised so that force match-ups and plans are more true to his recommendations?

I think many scenarios are good, but scenario OOBs sometimes rely on organic battalion assets without regimental formations supporting. This makes Soviet forces weaker in both the offensive and defensive than they would be. I can't fault scenario designers for not considering this because in pretty much every other CM title, a battalion is a battalion and a battalion would be expected to have enough organic assets to conduct missions.

To wit, assignment of regimental support would go a long way to bolstering lethargic Soviet infantry battalions. I had no idea how many mortars or machine guns were available for fire support, or how divisional and regimental support would be passed down to support battalions. The 2 AT guns in a Soviet battalion make much more sense when regimental and divisional batteries would be deployed as well. The support of snipers, MGs, mortars and AT rifles from higher eschelons to a rifle company fits in with the mission the company is assigned in the  scenario, and would reasonably be part of the planning process, even for a hasty attack.

3) Can someone explain how best to employ the battalion machine gun company? I've poured over WWII Infantry Fire Support Tactics and get the general idea of how Soviet fire support worked, but I'm not sure if I am supposed to concentate the company to have 9 MGs firing on the same area or disperse the platoons for 3 guns supporting each company on the attack or defending a strong point on the defense.

[Bug and stuff thread]

On 1/12/2020 at 2:11 PM, Erwin said:

Again... we need to hear from an arty person who knows this stuff.  

Artilleryman here, what was the question?

[TacAI stupidity: Stryker infantry opens hatches to shoot and die instatly]

Charging Stryers right at the enemy is not out of character for the American Way of War

- General DePuy, in remarks on the character of American Infantry

[Hits not showing (no hit decals displaying)]

I do find that in QBs on either large maps or with large forces decals don't show up unless I zoom very close. I suppose they are a low priority for rendering.

[The upgraded Canadian campaign "The Khabour Trail" is now yours!]

This observation applies to QB as well as the campaign: Not even in the Stratcona's does a Trooper get command of his own vehicle! Better to have a Cpl or MCpl rank displayed for NCM vehicle commanders I think.

[Documenting uniform model/texture problems]

CMFI RTV - SS officers in Sept '43, service cap texture isn't aligned with model

[CM WWII: Are tanks "overpowered"?]

52 minutes ago, General Jack Ripper said:

Just admit it's because you're desperate, all other options have been exhausted, and you might as well request a ceasefire because you're just wasting time until the inevitable.

If the enemy has more than one tank, then an infantry close assault is effectively suicide, because one tank can cover the other one with it's cannon and machineguns.

 

Sadly, Dick Johnson cannot persuade the 10th Panzer Division to retreat by waving his M1 Garand at them menacingly. If you've lost all your major anti-tank assets and the enemy still has tanks, you should just accept the fact your chances at victory are slim to none, and act accordingly. Sometimes a battle is impossible to win, but human beings are fallible, and can be encouraged to make a mistake.

Soviet infantry killed panzers at close range all of the way from Moscow to Berlin. Clearly their tactics worked because 45mm AT guns, AT Rifles and AT Grenades were not discarded along the way. German counterattacks, including those of heavy panzer battalions were turned away by soviet infantry, with their organic weapons in their trenches or built up areas. This needs to be reflected in Red Thunder, else as you said, as soon as your opponent fields a tiger or tiger ii you may as well call for a ceasefire.

[Air strikes]

I was under the impression that in the East, IL-2s roamed doing their own thing but I seem to recall Typhoons and Tempests being tightly controlled by the Commonwealth.

Which is how it works now, so far as I can tell. I believe one patch changed all WW2 air to the RT system but then it was changed back.