domfluff

We've got a fair idea of that too. Partial spots will resolve into full spots faster than no spots. This time isn't constant (so, dice rolls), but there is a clear tendency here. If a platoon was four tanks with C2 links, but dispersed, then a spot from Tank 3 will spread to the Platoon HQ, and then down to the remaining tanks. You will see the HQ pick up the spot first, then the others in the platoon. Again, this transit time isn't constant, but will depend on C2 quality and other, presumably random elements. This is all assuming valid C2 links, therefore unbroken radios, actual LOS comms and unsuppressed crews. If the tanks are within horizontal sharing distance (4 squares) they will share to their neighbours as well. That means that a platoon will be expected to spot faster than an individual tank in real terms.

I can describe how it works in Combat Commander, since that's immediately in my head: (Combat Commander is also derived from Squad Leader, which is the genesis of Combat Mission, so although it's not 1:1. you can see a lot of the same DNA). Above is an American rifle squad. Stats are Firepower 6, Range 6, Move 4, Morale 6 on the unbroken side, and these mostly go down on the broken side. Squares are special things with other triggers (in this case, automatic fire and smoke grenades). Generating fires would be comparing the firepower of the lead unit, in this case 6, and then adding one for each additional unit/weapon participating in the attack, so a full platoon firing at a single squad might start at 8. This is then modified by hinderance. The line of fire is drawn, and each piece of terrain this line crosses over in between firer and shooter will modify the shot - but only the highest modifier is counted. This might mean -1 for some rough terrain and -2 for some high wheat fields, meaning that the total hinderance would be -2, for a resultant firepower of 8-2 = 6. (This part is the similarity, and we know from previous communication that a very similar mechanism is part of the spotting/firing solution in CM.) The firer then rolls 2D6 (in combat commander's case this is drawing a card with dice printed in the corner, but it's 2D6 nonetheless), and adding their modified firepower. The target is the enemy morale, and they're trying to roll great than that to break them. This morale is modified by the cover they are in (so, a building would add +2 to this target number. Succeeding against an unbroken unit breaks them, against a broken unit destroys them.

We actually know how this part works. "Clutter" isn't really a thing, although there was mention of an increased change of things like wire-guided ATGM failure, but we know that the underlying terrain tiles along the firing line degrade spotting. This is analogous (and presumably directly analogous) to the Hindrance rules in Advanced Squad Leader and derived titles.

You're not wrong about what it became, but I'm less sure that's an entirely fair summary of early GW. GW was started by three guys with a market stall, and were the first importers of D&D (and later other RPGs) into the UK. For a while they managed to convinced people that they were the *only* importers of RPG material into the UK, and signed a lot of exclusive contracts. When these expired, most of those suppliers went elsewhere, meaning that GW was left with miniature lines that it couldn't legally sell. Rather than dump these, they threw together a generic fantasy rules system around the miniatures and moulds they already had. A clear example is Runequest, for they had models representing the Broo: This line of Broo miniatures was then renamed into "Beastmen", so that they could continue to be sold. That's extremely dubious legally and morally, since they had lost the licence to the intellectual property, and certainly the first edition of Warhammer wasn't the setting that it would later become - that didn't really happen until third edition, and the launch of WFRP. Equally, a lot of the early GW business was about publishing other people's titles, and alongside them making their own, simpler versions, which they would heavily promote. Battletech became Adeptus Titanicus, Car Wars became Dark Future, etc. I'm not sure that GW has ever really been a punky upstart with a strong moral compass - they've always been a corporate entity, it's just that the scope and scale have shifted quite a bit.

I definitely wouldn't want to be that guy. As soon as you turn an IR spotlight on, everything can see you, and you're still going to be revealing less than you give away - I don't think that's really a viable option for anything.

I was under the impression that none of the tanks in CM with active infrared use them actively, for fairly obvious reasons (i.e., in this kind of peer conflict, you're making yourself far more visible to the enemy than you're making them visible to you). From memory, the T-62's passive IR functions out to 100-200m or so, and it's not great. It's a lot better than nothing, but it's not good. Night fighting wasn't the doctrine of either side at the start of the CMCW period, and as such in CW, night fights are either as confused, ridiculous and random as they are in the WW2 titles, or they're dominated by the later US gear.

There's some more, but that's a good start.

Things we know: The Target tool is based on a lookup table, generated by the map. This takes five heights (crawling, standing, small vehicle, vehicle, tall vehicle) and finds each square to each other square. This is why the Target tool can be so fast, and why it's always been fast, even when the engine itself wasn't as hot. Spotting and Shooting (line of sight and line of fire) are two separate calculations. Spotting is done from the model's eyeballs, and a firing solution is plotted explicitly - the actual chap represented plots true line of sight when trying to make a shot. The shot itself has a degree of randomness, of course, and one factor that is factored into that are a "hinderance" value from intervening terrain tiles (much like ASL, etc.). Spotting uses a similar method, but doesn't use exactly this method. Doing this would be expensive in CPU terms (and especially was in 2007). Instead, each unit is given a spotting cycle. This defaults to seven seconds (i.e., there is a check every seven seconds for what this unit can see), but this time is flexible and will vary based on aspects like distance to the enemy. This spotting cycle is often a cause of complaints - it's possible to force some weird results if you charge a Jeep directly at a tank along a road, moving as fast as possible. If you happen to catch this at a weird step in the spotting cycle, then this will not update until the Jeep is in an apparently ludicrous position. So there are many factors at play. Even if there were no RNG elements involved at all in the spotting calculations, the resultant calculations are far more complex than something human-observable. Since variance, hidden information and sufficient complexity can all be mathematically equivalent, even if there were no random elements at all to the spotting system, you'd still end up with something which is to all intents and purposes, "random". If you can't possibly predict the outcome from knowing the starting conditions, that's "random" whether or not it involves any dice rolls.

If I'm interpreting these screenshots correctly, then I'm not really surprised by the results here. 1) Your tanks are moving, theirs are stationary. All things being equal they should spot first. All things are definitely not equal here. 2) You have no spotting contacts for your armour. Your armour has no idea what they're rolling into, where to look or what to look for. This is fundamentally incorrect technique. Sometimes that's necessary, naturally, since desperation is a thing, but I don't get the impression this is correct here. 3) For the above, that kind of thing is why I tend to repeat things like "Shock Force teaches bad habits" - you can get away with that if you have a significant advantage in quality over your opposition, such as in Shock Force, Black Sea or some situations in the WW2 titles, but if you don't have that quality advantage - and in this situation you firmly do not - then this kind of bad practice is a lot more exposed. 4) It's hard to judge but it looks as though you're exposing a smaller number of tanks than you're rolling into - the enemy platoon in a stationary position also outnumbers you, so there are more eyes to see you than for you to see them. Even if all things were equal (and they're still not), and you weren't moving (but you were), I'd *still* expect them to spot you before you spot them. Quite aside from arguing about the quality of the simulation here, even if we limited this to discussion in terms of the representation of game mechanics, I'm not sure these screenshots show what you think they're showing.

The armour displays do show this as being better. My point was: a) the displays are wrong. The in-game performance of the T-64A’s armour is significantly better than that of the M60, as it should be b) the armour ui is, and always has been perhaps the single most useless and deceptive part of the ui - even if they were accurate they are hard to read and harder apply in any meaningful manner. Actual RHA numbers would be a lot more useful, although even those are only a fraction of the story.

Whether to use an XO team or to detach runners really depends on how well planned this is - if you're keeping an armour formation in reserve for a counter-attack, then a dedicated XO team with radio (either man-carried or in a jeep or something) would be the thing to do. If you need something more extemporaneous, then you may have to go with what you've got.

1. Spotting. There's a ton of smoke in those pictures, I imagine that's part of it. CM spotting works on cycles, so closing distance rapidly will create weird situations like this, if you're caught in between cycles. Spotting is also a percentage game. Doctrinally and in practice in CM, the Soviet method was to get as much mass on target as possible. The first tank to spot their opponent will usually win the engagement, but if you can get enough tanks on target at the same time, it doesn't matter which one spots first, as long as one of them does. To model that with arbitrary values - we could give the US tank a 50% chance of getting the first spot in a given engagement. We'll arbitrarily make the Soviet tanks half as good as that - a 25% chance of getting the first spot. One vs One, clearly the US tank will have a major advantage, but if there were three Soviet tanks, then the chances of *one* of them getting the first spot is 58%. Understanding this is absolutely fundamental to understanding how to play Soviet and Soviet-derived forces, and it's something the Tutorial scenarios do a really good job of teaching. 2. Armour. The armour squares are a legacy UI element, which has always been pretty useless. The T-64A and especially T-64B have significantly better armour than the M60 in game, at least to the front turret.

Information passes vertically within the same formation. Imagine I have two platoons from the same company, each with three Squads A, B and C. That means the structure might look like: Company: cHQ Platoon 1: HQ1, a1, b1, c1 Platoon 2: HQ2, a2, b2, c2 We'll assume everyone has a valid C2 link in some manner, sight, vocal, radio, whatever. If squad a1 has a spot, and I really need b2 to have that spotting information, then the information will get transmitted in jumps up and down the formation: a1 will spread to HQ1, which will spread up to cHQ, which will spread down to HQ2, which will spread down to b2. Each of those jumps costs time, and this means that this is not necessarily the most efficient way to spread this. Higher level formations (battalion in this case, but also division and regiment) are represented, but off-map and contactable by radio. This necessarily takes longer to spread off and on map. In addition, horizontal sharing is a thing. The vertical sharing above only happens within the same formations. Any two units regardless of formation can share information when they are within four action spots. This has a number of implications. - Most formations keep their recon assets high in the TO&E structure. This will have the effect of reducing the number of steps, since the battalion scouts will report to the battalion HQ, who will spread things from there. - Keeping C2 is the primary role of HQ units. A "leaders recon" is a real thing in reality, as it is in CM - spotting with an HQ unit is obviously risky, but in the right circumstance can be a lot more efficient in getting a good idea of what is out there. Taking a calculated risk with your HQ can pay off in some situations. - Sharing information between units is why you'll see more combined arms units in the modern titles, particularly for the US. A US mechanised company in Cold War is a fully capable unit, with armour, infantry, organic artillery and supporting ATGMs, all in one little C2 network that can operate independently. - Horizontal sharing gives purpose to any "XO" units and secondary leaders. These can be the go-between between disparate formations - keeping in contact with their HQ via radio, and sharing spotting contact horizontally with the unrelated unit (perhaps a battery of AT guns, a tank platoon, whatever). - Sharing between actually disparate units is something you want to plan for, and do horizontally. Sending a "runner" (perhaps a two man scout team) will work for this, but if you have a well-planned assault then this is what the XO team is actually for.

Sure. I'd like a way to do that which doesn't cripple my infantry though BRDMs don't have any special reconnaissance equipment above and beyond a large window and a radio - they're a transport vehicle for a scout team (and pretty great at that job).

Firmly has been discussed. The BRDMs also don't have their scout teams, among other issues. I still think that this is a tremendous shame - that map is one of the best in Cold War, and it wouldn't take much to turn that into one of the best scenarios in the game.

Typical reasons would include damage to the gun, being out of ammunition, or the gunner (and the gunner alone) not having LOS to the target, due to some intervening terrain.

Engineering equipment has been on the "soon" list since the CMSF 1 manual. I actually have a pet theory that the first mission of Task Force Thunder was designed with a mine plow Stryker in mind, which never materialised.

There are, which means the statement in the video to that effect is not correct. It's also true that the diversity represented for the UK forces in Combat Mission: Shock Force (and therefore the base for the UK forces in CM:PE) doesn't match up to the real-world UK army, particularly that of 2021.

It's in the timeframe, and I wouldn't be surprised to see it - but the main thing is that it's an engineer's weapon, for urban combat. This is firmly not the focus of Cold War, and my guess would be that this is why it's not in-game.

The Soviet campaign is amazing. It's brutal, unforgiving and does a really good job of expressing the fundamental concepts. I'm working through it slowly, but it's one of the best campaigns I've ever played in Combat Mission, as all of the Cold War campaigns are. I do think having that mission as the first mission is harsh, and not being given the tools to deal with that situation (when you could easily have that) pushes that from being "challenging" into being unfair. When I did this scenario last, I took zero casualties in the FSE, so it's certainly possible (with some luck, since air/anti-air is always down to luck really). That firmly was not the first attempt though, and that's the part where I agree with Greyfox. As said, I'd really like those 20 minutes. The (worse) alternative might be to start the CRP further forward, in position to get LOS on the hill-based defenders on turn one. That would reduce your agency significantly though.

The_Capt's original discussion on the same. Honestly, I mostly just really want those twenty minutes back. As-is, the recon phase is compressed by using the pre-battle intel, but that's entirely random - if you get a good roll that's fine, but otherwise the challenge is essentially unfair. With those twenty minutes, I have zero problem with any other aspect of this scenario, the enemy, the map, the air attack... even the location where the FSE spawns, these are all 100% solvable problems, if you're given the tools (in this case the time, since you have the tools) to do something about them.

I'm glad we clamped down on that rampant positivity so harshly. Wouldn't want to think one could enjoy playing Combat Mission.

The most likely situation I suspect is that you've screwed up a time trigger/ or order/objective trigger somewhere. Easily done, especially as the trigger is usually on the prior order (so not visible). The second or that the AI order is one some kind of command towards the assault end of things, and it's not deciding to advance with that unit (although being 100% of the AI group probably makes that unlikely).

I've made QB maps in CMCW out of the master maps, which was my first time doing that (since the QB maps are all far too small). Despite what the manual says, you don't need AI plans to make a valid QB map. To make a QB map you need to have some objectives (which will all become occupy objectives), and setup zones for both sides, but that's it. I assume they need to be given VP values, but the whole process is set up to be as braindead as possible - you can basically make any map into a QB map and it will sort-of work. What I suspect is happening is the map data. Under the data tab you need to specify whether this is a Meeting Engagement, Attack, etc., and then this will appear in the list of possible maps when you start a QB of that type. If you have it listed as an "attack" and you start a meeting engagement, you won't see it. I think this is the problem. Other things worth knowing for Quick Battles: Attacker Force Ratios Meeting Engagement: 1 : 1 Probe: 1.5 : 1 Attack: 1.65 : 1 Assault: 1.8 : 1 Terrain/Casualties VP Meeting Engagement: 400/600 Probe: 500/500 Attack: 650/350 Assault: 750/250 The map will assign VP based on relative points on offer. If you set up a map with two objectives, and gave them values of 2 VP and 3 VP, they would be worth 200 VP and 300 VP in a Probe Quick Battle. The same thing would apply if they were 400 VP and 600 VP, they would still be worth 200 and 300 respectively.

The frustration, naturally, is going to be on where you set that suppression bar. From the player's point of view, they can see the unit coming under fire and their men not reacting - either because they're not getting suppressed at all (the rounds aren't hitting anywhere close), or because they're not being suppressed enough. Anywhere you draw that arbitrary line is going to be wrong in some manner. I think where it is, is probably okay. I do think you could make an argument for having this set to be a little more sensitive, but that will also inevitably be wrong, just in a different direction.