MOS:96B2P

@Josey Wales is the expert on this stuff. My understanding, mostly based on tests by Josey Wales, is the following: Fatigue has no effect on a unit’s accuracy or on its morale state regardless if the current morale state is a result from either Combat Stress or Combat Shock or a combination of both. Fatigue will only affect your movement options: Tired troops cannot Fast Move. Fatigued troops cannot Fast, Assault or Hunt Move. Exhausted troops cannot Fast, Assault, Hunt or Quick Move.

@DerKommissar there is a way to save a core force and import it into existing scenarios and quick battles. I have used it before and it is kind of a cool way to create your own campaign by using stock scenarios or quick battles. I'm not sure how it would work in a PBEM environment. A "Game Master, judge type" would probably have to make the initial core unit imports before every battle then send it to a player who would then initiate a traditional PBEM? I've not given the mechanics of how this would work for your purposes a lot of thought. After the original core units are created a spread sheet or word document could track the casualties and the appropriate modification to the core force could be made before the next battle? Below are my notes on how I use it. You may be able to modify the below to fit your idea. Good luck. Core unit notes: To save a favorite group option when building TOE save it as a core unit file, like you would make for a campaign, but you can load it onto any map you have in the editor. To save a favorite group option when building TOE open the QB map or scenario in the scenario editor, drop in your force from the core file (import feature). (If QB add the force you want to fight against and drop it into the OpFor setup zone.) Set up your force how you want. Then save the file in your scenarios folder (I'd recommend renaming it too, to avoid accidents). When you start the new scenario the AI should set up your opponents randomly and take over from there. I create a Core Units Files sub-folder in all my CM Game Files folders. To create a core unit: 1) Open up the scenario editor. 2) Select desired units. 3) Save in Scenarios 4) Name the scenario file. Example - Core US 1944 Armored Inf. Company. To import core units into a scenario: 1) Open up the scenario in the scenario editor. 2) Go to units and delete the units you are replacing with your core force. 3) Click on Import Campaign Units. 4) The scenarios file will open. 5) Select the desired core force. 6) Click Deploy Units and place the core force in the setup zone. 7) Save with a different name to preserve the original scenario.

I played your first scenario and it was a good one (link is below for those wanting to give it a try). I don't remember if I played V1 or V2 of Pierrefitte-en-Cinglais but as I remember it was a good infantry based scenario. What was your second scenario? http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cm-battles-for-normandy/crossroads-at-pierrefitte-en-cinglais/

These two look like they are about to have blast.

Now THAT is funny!!

Hopefully CM3...................

@Chibot Mk IX IIRC Excalibur precision was rolled back in patch 1.03 in May 2015 and the precision of laser-guided munitions such as Krasnopol was bumped up. The Russian Zala UAV is the only UAV in CMBS that can't spot for precision rounds. So the Russian Pchela and Orlan UAV will spot for precision artillery. Based on a previous thread, linked below, I don't think the in-game ECM affects GPS. So ECM (in the game, don't know about RL) does not affect the US Excalibur round. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125644-precision-artillery-with-excalibur-shells-keeps-missing-target/?do=findComment&comment=1721907

And be prepared to suffer from PTSD before the end of the mission . +1

+2 Interesting stuff. I may have to re-visit my scouting SOPs.

Looks cool.

@37mm another nice video. +1

There have been many operational level games played with different ideas and mechanics used. Some are talked about in various forum threads here and at the Few Good Men (FGM). Rico is currently running one at the FGM now. The link is below. At the beginning of the thread he explains how he set it up. Shows his operational map etc. Thought you might find it interesting. http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/the-island-war-the-rico-reich-vs-the-republic-of-gunn.26848/

In the early beta versions the Russians had some EMC. But I removed it early on for various reasons. (I think one reason was the disappointing UAV performance). So no ECM at all in TOC. @domfluff I apologize for the thread derail. Back to the very interesting subject of irregulars!!

Hmm, that's true. I used JTACs in TOC because they were dedicated UAV operators assigned to the UAV Operations Center inside the FOB. Maybe a Fire Support team, renamed UAV Operations Team, would have been better at spotting and hitting targets................ off to test. Sure Erwin, NOW you think of that .

It is interesting that a JTAC team is used for the demo instead of an FO team. A JTAC I thought was generally for air strikes. In March 2017 using CMBS I did some experiments with FO teams and JTAC teams. I was surprised at how long it took a JTAC (Joint Terminal Attack Controller) team to get artillery FFE on a target. This included both precision and conventional artillery strikes. In the test a Veteran FO took 3 minutes to call for 105mm fire. A Veteran JTAC took 8 minutes. I notice in the CMSF2 demo the platoon leader takes 2 minutes for the 120mm mortar and the JTAC takes 4 minutes for the same mortar team. This of course is time not accuracy. Always something to test....................

I bet you can't make that happen a second time!!! +1

I think the lack of night vision is significant in both RL and in the game. However scenarios set during the day would help even things out as far as vision. Also the uncon Forward Observer spies can be very useful for intelligence and calling in indirect fires. Why do you say limited supplies? Possibly you mean they would have been limited in real life. If so this is probably often the case. I was just thinking from an editor perspective where the designer can set supplies at full, provide ammo dumps, ammo trucks etc. I hope we figure out the mechanics of how stealth (civilian density) works once we get our hands on the CMSF2 editor. Then we can make the civilian density setting a little more predictable. The lack of C2 is a problem but I suppose a realistic one. However it occurs to me that we have cell phone IED dudes available in the editor. To bad we couldn't assign them throughout the uncon TOE with the ability to maintain C2 (via cell phones) among the uncon units. But as it is now almost every time they dial a number something explodes At least in theory uncon forces fight only when they think they have the advantage. If scenarios are designed with this theory in mind a lot can be done to make the battle very tactically challenging for the conventional player (more balanced). So, in theory, the mission would seldom if ever be a uncon company vs a conventional company. However it might be two uncon companies against one conventional platoon (equipped with Humvees) escorting supply trucks through a city. The supply trucks take a wrong turn ...............and the QRF is 30 minutes out .........and ROE no air power ...........and etc. I'm sure you have already thought of this I'm just keeping the interesting conversation going .

Hey, Airborne Red. I'm not a tech type so I'm not much help. The ticket you submitted with the help desk is the way to go. However, I can say that CMBN has a slightly different install location than CMBS. The "My Documents" location is probably not part of the problem (I think that it might be the correct location for CMBN).

Rodger that. +1

Wow. I wonder how many of the "next" move were the same move. Interesting.

Yes, the team leaders all have names. Makes it a little more personal. Especially in a campaign, when Sgt. Wright has been leading A team for the last two scenarios and now in scenario three his Humvee hits an IED............ I can picture @Erwin in the fetal position under his computer desk sobbing .............

Disclaimer: I feel compelled to type the following before incoming fires start to land spotting rounds among us. I don't think anyone is advocating that Battlefront should stop what they are doing and re-direct their very limited time and resources to these ideas (not that they would anyways). This is just a friendly discussion among friends. So - not exactly the same, but along the same general lines, I think it would be interesting if there was a second AI force. This would make possible all kinds of interesting scenarios. Two competing or cooperating AI forces, depending how the scenario designer set them up. One AI force would always be the OpFor as it is now. The second AI force could be allied with the first AI force or allied with the player or fight both the player and first AI force. It would depend how the scenario designer set it up. Conventional Example: An AI force set to play the role of a friendly unit (but not controlled by the player). Alpha Company from your battalion advancing on your left flank. So you have to maintain a certain amount of coordination with Alpha Company. Then the actions of Alpha Company would be set by the scenario designer in the editor. A Company would have different AI plans. In AI plan #1 Alpha Company does a competent job of advancing and securing the player's left flank. In plan #2 Alpha Company withdraws at a critical phase or stops to re-group etc. Unconventional Example: Green on Blue attacks. Or as @RepsolCBR said civilians. But civilians that would not be controlled by the player. The second AI force assigned as civilians (in CMSF2 using the unarmed spies and/or low ammo combatants) to represent refugees, people moving through a checkpoint, etc. So a group of AI controlled civilians are approaching the player's checkpoint. Are the civilians controlled by the allied AI or the OpFor AI? All the player knows is that he does not control them and they are getting closer to his checkpoint and he has ROEs. The last group was friendly. Is this group? Didn't the intelligence brief say something about a white pickup truck being used in an attack recently............. there is a white pickup truck with this group....... The tactical situations would be greatly expanded with a second independent AI force.

I think this question was intended for @Splinty.

If you give one of your fire teams or vehicles a Target order on an enemy unit, your unit will shoot at the enemy unit. There can be some exceptions. Some exceptions I can think of might be: Your unit loses line of fire (LOF) to the enemy unit. Your unit stops to re-load. Your unit is out of ammo. Your unit's AI believes there is a higher priority target it needs to shoot at first. Your unit is suppressed / pinned. And this is the exception I get on occasion: I give a vehicle a Target order. During the turn it cycles thru arming and firing (in the status box bottom left corner of the screen) but it never shoots. This occasionally happens with marginal LOS/LOF. The most likely cause is that the gunner has Line of Sight (LOS) to the target but the gun does not have Line of Fire (LOF). The target line shows LOS, not LOF, so it is sometimes possible to Target something the vehicle / unit cannot actually shoot at. That's about all I can think of off hand. If my answer doesn't seem to fit what you are seeing maybe describe the problem more in detail for us.

Got it. Looking good. These are very cool.