DougPhresh

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

I'd just like the fortifications to not be scattered all over the map when I start the deploy phase of a QB. It would be so much easier to have them neatly organized like units were, and how they were in the CM1 titles.

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
 
In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.

The smallest combat unit that carries out independent action is the Regiment. In the Combat Mission scale, I wouldn't use anything less than a Battalion for an attack.
Now, if we take that into consideration and look back at the briefing for this scenario:
And the fact that the scenario is a probe, we might re-evaluate the appropriate doctrine. I would suggest that we treat Mike's force as either an ad-hoc formation acting as the Regimental recon screen, or a first echelon force. In either case, there is doctrine for this kind of engagement with roughly the forces Mike has.
 



 

Doug, thanks for the post, I always love talking tactics.   
I understand how the Russian system works, but I am not commanding a Regimental attack here, this is a Company (+) Probe.  Even they use Recon Pull (see the NTC OPFOR, Soviet Forward Detachments, Russian Reconnaissance, etc.)... I believe, regardless of the force commanded, that it is always a good idea to know your enemy's positions, strength, and intent prior to committing to any option for attack.  By the way Doug, I have conducted Command Push in a couple of my AARs, (see Wittmann's Demise and the CMRT BETA AAR for a couple examples).  In both of those actions though, I had good covered terrain within which to operate, in the terrain this fight is occurring on any avenue is potentially deadly to me from anywhere if I move out into unscouted terrain.  
Echelon tactics do not apply to this situation, I am facing a formation with a potentially similar sized force and far superior equipment... also I know the T-72 is capable, but is it comparable to a Western tank?  I think not, they need to be committed with care and at the right moment to be effective.

While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
 
In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.

While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
 
In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.

While I have always admired your ability to use western techniques like the recon pull, this illustrates issues that I see a lot of gamers facing when using Eastern Bloc forces.
Attack by echelon is brutal, simple, predictable and effective. I would suggest focusing on a command push, using the forces you have at hand, and using the appropriate doctrine for them. A T-72 is not a worse Leopard, it is a lethal weapons system when used in its intended role.
This post by JasonC in the CMBB forum fundamentally changed how I think about Soviet forces and has made me a much better player at not only CMRT and CMBS but any wargame that puts me in command of units that start with "T" instead of "M".
And from US Field Manual 100-2-1 The Soviet Army: Operations and Tactics.
 
In summary, use the tactics developed for the equipment you have. By analogy, I often see players in CMFI complain about Italian forces. While there are obviously shortcomings with the equipment and organization of the Italian Army in the Second World War, many of the complaints stem from trying to accomplish missions using doctrine tailored for other forces.
Take for instance the Infantry Battalion: The Italians do not have MG focused squads like the Germans, and do not break down into small 4 man teams like the Germans and Western Allies. This breaks down the fire-and-movement tactics at the squad and platoon level players are used to. Instead, the Italian Army has an exception light mortar in large numbers that provides the base of fire for platoon attacks and medium mortars and heavy machine guns used to support the company and battalion attack.
The Syrian Army will always lose if using tactics developed for NATO forces. As demonstrated in the Golan, and even more-so by the Egyptians in crossing the Suez, Warsaw Pact equipped forces can beat Western forces if used with the appropriate tactics.

I'd say 4-6 plus more in the LAV. Especially in the areas of Kandahar Province that were relatively green, those grape huts were everywhere and the LAW was the only thing we could carry on patrol that would be able to engage them.
This is from an article but it does a good job of describing why we needed to carry LAWs when clearing fields:
Not my photo, but this is what the fields in the area look like, and why Grape Huts were such a big threat.

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

It would be nice if, in addition to Target, Target Light and Target Timed there was a way to select which weapon to fire. The BMP-2M comes to mind which has an Autocannon, LMG, ATGM and AGL. 
The first thing that comes to mind is having something similar to when you place a move order on a building and you get the little pop up that asks which floor. Simply have that come up when you place a target marker and have a list of available weapons, with the default set for all, which is I think the current behavior.
 
 

It would be nice if, in addition to Target, Target Light and Target Timed there was a way to select which weapon to fire. The BMP-2M comes to mind which has an Autocannon, LMG, ATGM and AGL. 
The first thing that comes to mind is having something similar to when you place a move order on a building and you get the little pop up that asks which floor. Simply have that come up when you place a target marker and have a list of available weapons, with the default set for all, which is I think the current behavior.
 
 

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

Anecdotal, but the C9A2 was filtering into battalion at least in '04.
The manual also specifically includes the C79 as an integral component of the weapons system.

http://biblioteka.mycity-military.com/biblioteka/Diemaco/C9 Light Machine Gun.pdf

I'd say 4-6 plus more in the LAV. Especially in the areas of Kandahar Province that were relatively green, those grape huts were everywhere and the LAW was the only thing we could carry on patrol that would be able to engage them.
This is from an article but it does a good job of describing why we needed to carry LAWs when clearing fields:
Not my photo, but this is what the fields in the area look like, and why Grape Huts were such a big threat.

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

I'd say 4-6 plus more in the LAV. Especially in the areas of Kandahar Province that were relatively green, those grape huts were everywhere and the LAW was the only thing we could carry on patrol that would be able to engage them.
This is from an article but it does a good job of describing why we needed to carry LAWs when clearing fields:
Not my photo, but this is what the fields in the area look like, and why Grape Huts were such a big threat.

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

I was in the military at that time (well, until last month actually!) and we absolutely had C79s on our C9s.
Maybe Reserve Units didn't (set eq. to Poor maybe?) but we sure did even in the Artillery.
Also, can so-sign on LAV commanders being lower down, additionally the MG on the LAV and Coyote was not remote operated.
We carried as many LAWs as possible as it was the only way to bust up what we called "Grape Huts" which were thick mud brick agricultural buildings.
I'm happy to answer as many CF related questions as I can as one of the things I liked best about CMSF was seeing "myself" represented in a major wargame.
 
e: The C9s we had in Afghanistan were the improved C9A2 which has the same buttstock as the C7 and comes issued with the C79 and has green furniture like the C7A2.

 

I'd say 4-6 plus more in the LAV. Especially in the areas of Kandahar Province that were relatively green, those grape huts were everywhere and the LAW was the only thing we could carry on patrol that would be able to engage them.
This is from an article but it does a good job of describing why we needed to carry LAWs when clearing fields:
Not my photo, but this is what the fields in the area look like, and why Grape Huts were such a big threat.

I'd say 4-6 plus more in the LAV. Especially in the areas of Kandahar Province that were relatively green, those grape huts were everywhere and the LAW was the only thing we could carry on patrol that would be able to engage them.
This is from an article but it does a good job of describing why we needed to carry LAWs when clearing fields:
Not my photo, but this is what the fields in the area look like, and why Grape Huts were such a big threat.