MOS:96B2P

It can take some time to acquire ammo and equipment from a vehicle. One of the things that I found can help is the use of a two man scout team or AT team. I split a two man team (scout or AT) off from the squad. Now this two man team can be used to acquire ammo for the rest of the squad while the squad can remain on line fighting. Also the two man team is small enough it can get in most vehicles to acquire the needed ammo. After acquiring the ammo the two man team then returns to the same action spot as the rest of the squad. The game automatically recombines the teams into one squad and distributes the ammo among all the teams. Next turn you can split the squad back into fire teams. The teams / squad will distribute ammo and continue to shoot while recombining however there will be some danger while all the teams are bunched together. Below are some screenshots taken from CMBN reference acquiring supplies from an ammo dump. While the time period is different and does not involve a vehicle the concept is the same with a two man team getting supplies for the rest of the squad. (Just ignore the C2 reference. That was for a different topic.) This method still takes the same amount of time but it keeps most of the squad in the fight and the two man team will almost always be able to get in the vehicle to acquire the needed ammo. Getting that two man team sent off in a timely manner to acquire the ammo is also important. Hope this helped and gave you some ideas.

This sounds very interesting. I think it would probably work as far as game mechanics go. Getting a mission concept fleshed out would probably be the important part. However, I have only made and released one small scenario (CMSF Consulate Evacuation) so my knowledge/experience is admittedly limited. What would really be useful is if some veteran scenario designers gave this a look. Combatintman, JonS, Paper Tiger, PanzerMike and others. They could give much more relevant practical feedback. So the biggest contribution of my comment is probably to get this post bumped back up towards the top of the forum where maybe it will be noticed by a veteran scenario designer. Sounds interesting. Hope you get some useful replies.

Also the iconic cold war M113 APC. Not that they would be a very robust vehicle with T-64s around. It would just be cool to see this cold war vehicle in a CM game.

I read somewhere on the forum that the assault command (not to be confused with the administrative assault team split) was meant for Real Time play. Since I play in WeGo I don't use it. I always split my squads into separate teams and control the bounds/assaults. This gives me good results most of the time. I didn't know (since I don't use it) that the assault command teams share the same morale. This alone is reason enough not use the assault command.

The game mechanics can be frustrating when things don’t turn out right. The AI is far from perfect and can always use some improvement. One of the biggest challenges is to take our tactical ideas and translate them into commands via the user interface that the AI will understand and follow. I have found the following tactics will mostly give the desired result in building assaults. First I try not to intentionally enter an OpFor occupied building. I attempt to drive the occupants out with firepower and would rather, when possible, level the building instead of forcing entry. But sometimes you have to make a dynamic entry of an occupied building. It is best to have multiple squads split into fire teams. Under the admin command there is the assault team split. Make this split. Then look at this team’s ammo panel in the UI. You will see that they have most of the squad’s grenades. Have the remainder of the squad (B Team) area fire into the building as a suppression team. There should be two or three additional suppression teams also area firing into the building. All the better if one or more of these teams is a machine gun team. Watch for the OpFor teams to cower and their return fire dwindle. This may take three or four minutes. If they don’t cower (become suppressed) the fire is not enough. When you get ready to go in if any of your suppression teams have bazookas, rifle grenades, etc. switch those teams to target light so as not to injure your assault team. Then quick the assault team up to an action spot outside the building. Pause them in this action spot for about 10 seconds. They will now make use of those grenades. When the 10 seconds is up quick them inside the building to close and hose. Your suppression teams will still be area firing on target light into the building. They will not injure your troops on target light but it is possible that they might suppress your own troops. However, at this point, the fight is going to be over with very quickly for better or worse. I think the advantage is to keep the target light stuff coming. Now comes an even more dangerous time for your assault troops. If there are OpFor troops behind the building or on the other side of a common wall they will now target your assault troops. And your troops that were providing the suppressive fire will probably not be able to support them in a timely manner. Another reason I try not to go into occupied buildings. Also after I own the building I try to have no more than one team per floor. For movement in woods I often use Hunt with a circular target arc of about 30 meters. Then they will usually only respond to threats inside the arc and keep advancing. Hope this gave you some ideas.

A 1980s Fulda Gap type base game could lead to a lot of interesting spin off scenarios with the help of the moding community and scenario designers. A scenario from almost any conflict in the 1980s could be created with NATO and Warsaw Pact equipment. Grenada, Panama and the Falklands just to name a few.

What Holman said. But I like the way you think. Maybe Combat Mission Fulda Gap 1985! or even CMFG set in 1986. I'm not picky.

In the WWII titles I would sometimes use smoke to isolate OpFor positions. I have not tried this in CMBS yet. But if the OpFor can see through and into the smoke with IR maybe the isolation smoke screen tactic will not be as effective? The game mechanics in the WWII titles would not allow for the firing through an established smoke screen. (Unless the fire was established prior to the smoke screen. Then the fire could continue until cancelled) Possibly another review of tactics due to the modern era.

I'm afraid of running out of shells using any rate of fire greater than light or harass. I normally use two tubes of arty (105mm preferred) with a light rate of fire, point target, maximum duration. When the rounds start to impact the first target I then adjust to the next target. A few more shells will fall on the original target and then the fire will start to shift. I don't remember the exact amount of time but I think many four tube arty batteries firing only two tubes on light will provide over 30 minutes of indirect support when used with these parameters. Usually enough time and HE to greatly assist with the breakthrough. Edit: Womble beat me to most of it.

We-Go & Iron. I don't play on iron because I think it is difficult. I like iron because IMO it makes it easier to tell what the Situational awareness of individual units are. At the iron setting when you click on a fire team you will see only what that fire team is aware of to include friendly units. This aids in the understanding of C2 and how C2, or the lack of it, plays a role in how that fire team may react to different situations.

I prefer We-go. I can play the turn back all I want and it also facilitates finding and taking screen shots. I can also take my time replay the last turn and follow all the small dramas taking place across the map. In real time I would probably have to mostly focus on the main effort / crisis and ignore the smaller dramas. I also think We-go helps with studying and learning tactics which is one of the enjoyable parts of the Combat Mission experience for me.

This is one of the things I really enjoy about the CM games. It gives you realistic tactical choices that you must make. Do I take all the extra AT equipment and have my unit not as agile but better prepared for OpFor armor? Or do I leave it in the vehicle and remain quick and agile but less prepared for OpFor armor? Firepower vs. mobility. As your fire team leaders wait during the orders phase with that "what should we do?" look. Cool game.

What difficulty setting are you playing on? If you play on Iron and and have team A of 1st Squad selected you will only see what team A is aware of. If so, when your squad entered the building, could you have had a different team selected. (That was in a different location and so could only see what that other team was aware of?) Then when you selected the team in the building you could see what they were aware of. (The dead bodies) Just an idea of what might have happened that came to mind when I read your post. (As I wait for CMBS to download. Four hours to go on my fourth attempt)

I think most (if not all) of the following I obtained from the Wiki site about a year ago. It seems correct from my own game play and testing. When I first found this it answered some questions I had. Thought this was a good opportunity to share it as it might help others. Minefields on the battlefield. For active, non-marked fields, this is a red sign with a skull and crossbones, saying "Danger Mines". A marked minefield has its sign changed to off-white. A known neutralized mine field (all mines detonated) has a green sign with a white X on it. Here are the setup strength levels of the three kinds of minefields, in the two kinds of mine. All amounts are approximations based on in-game testing: AP AT antipersonnel 14 0 antitank 0 2-3 mixed 10 1-2 Marking a minefield substantially reduces the chance of triggering a mine for infantry traversing the minefield. Although antitank minefields can be marked, marking them appears to have no effect, since infantry can traverse them without risk in any case and vehicles don't benefit from marking. Minefields can be neutralized by heavy artillery (150mm+), if it scores a direct hit. Minefields can be neutralized by a blast from a demo charge, although due to the game's limitations, a blast can only be performed if there is some blastable obstacle (such as wire) in the action spot. Anti-personnel mine explosions damage a vehicle's tracks or wheels. No other system on any vehicle is affected. Vehicles have varying levels of damage that their tracks/wheels can withstand before they are immobilized, ranging from only a handful of hits (3-4 for jeeps) up to many (roughly 22 to immobilize a Sherman). Anti-tank mines cannot be triggered by infantry.

Thanks for the feedback. It is interesting to hear how other players handled the mission. The mission has two AI plans.

Okay. Thanks for the info.

The concrete barriers do look cool. I wonder if they are flavor objects that vehicles can ignore or if they are like hedgehog obstacles in the WWII titles that restrict vehicular movement.

I think normally is about 24 hours. Also, since the forum upgrade, I don't think uploads to the Repository are automatically linked to an announcement on the forum. It may be possible that the mod is in the Repository but not linked to the scenario/mod thread of the forum. I tried to find it at the Repository but could not. What title did you submit it under?

When I want to check something out I will sometimes load a test scenario in hot seat mode or scenario author test mode. I then give both sides small target arcs (if I am testing spotting) so they don't try to kill each other and ruin the test. I then practice moving the various type of units around with different move orders and different terrain to try and figure out what works best in what situation.

Slim, Thanks for posting the video. I watched it about five times. It is interesting how mods can so dramatically change the look and feel of the game. For the first few seconds I was trying to figure out where, on the map, the camera was recording. At first I did not recognize my own scenario. LOL Even the militia and Strykers looked different. I noticed your Strykers did not have the RPG cage. So I wonder, in game mechanics, does the RPG cage on the Strykers actually provide extra protection or is it just for looks? I have become fairly competent at screen shots but someday I should learn how to record and post videos. I noticed you have your own YouTube channel. I think I will watch your videos as I wait for CMBS to come out. Thanks again for the video and I hope you enjoy the scenario.

Combatintman, Thanks for acting in the role of a Operational Mentor Liaison Team (OMLT) for the scenario creation. The adult supervision was much appreciated.

Direct fire suppression and indirect fire suppression (air burst style) provide 2 Para some maneuvering room. FOLLOW ME!!! A lot of squad / section maneuvering in this scenario so far. Very cool.

Thanks Jock! Load up the Strykers, it's hunting time!

Page 21 of the manual: Turn-based play (also known as WEGO) in Combat Mission allows the player to order commands and examine the battlefield at his leisure while the action is paused. Once the player begins the turn however, the action will continue for 60 seconds without interruption. The player can replay the turn as often as they like, and, once satisfied, a phase of giving orders begins, and so on. In Real Time, the action will be continuous and you can issue orders at any time; you can also pause the game by pressing the ESC key and continue to issue orders. Replay is not available in Real Time mode.

Good information and more to consider when making tactical decisions and when working in the map editor.