domfluff

As ever with German halftracks, I'd recommend *not* unbuttoning, at least by default - the gunner will stand up to shoot when needed, and will get down when not, keeping him out of fire. The halftrack will spot worse, but that's the "patience" part of it. Sometimes opening up is the thing to do, but it shouldn't be your default behaviour.

This is a fairly basic, gimmicky scenario, but "how to cross a river" is a classic tactical problem. You can Hull down from the deployment zone, and take it slow. The Russians do have anti-tank rifles, but you have far more firepower than they do - if you keep your distance and your patience you'll be able to spot and take them out. As you gain superiority, you'll be able to move forwards, a section of your halftracks at a time. Your dismounts are going to take up covered positions on your side of the river, and then use that to flush out the remaining Soviets, before getting the Schwimmwagen across.

TIK is great when he's just reading Glantz. The graphics and presentation is excellent. Straying from that is where things become a lot more contentious.

We don't know what this is going to look like for CM. The way it works for other Matrix games is that the PBEM files are hosted on Matrix servers, and you can set up open challenges (or closed challenges with a password), and therefore have pick-up PBEM games. CM has issues as a competitive multiplayer game (without some house rules and playing with sensible people), so this will have all of the inevitable issues, but the end result is something really exciting. Veterans may still prefer doing this the CMHelper way, with people they know, but this *will* increase the number of multiplayer games being played, which can only be a good thing.

If there's anything additional for CMFI, it'll be battle packs or vehicle packs, not full modules.

It's stuff Steve has said on this forum. There are five heights that the heightmap uses - crawling man, standing man, small, normal and tall vehicles, and the LOS table is built from each height to each other height, in each square.

The LOS tool (as in, the Target line, as well as the Hull Down command) uses a pre-calculated grid of different heights, which is generated when the map is created. This is one of the reasons why this is so fast - even in early versions of CMSF, where the game was not as well optimised as it now is, and hardware was generally weaker to boot, the Target tool never lagged out the game, because all it is doing is referred to a lookup table. This is firmly distinct from the actual unit line of sight, which is traced from the eyeballs and is calculated when they need to actually fire. This is why you can have a situation where the target line is solid blue, but the tank still can't fire, because the gunner's view is blocked by terrain or whatever. As to their vulnerability - clearly there's survivorship bias here. If they're exposing only part of themselves, that's the part that's going to get hit (because nothing else can). So... yes, they'll be vulnerable, especially in the modern titles, where being Hull Down in general means a lot less. One thing that's going to be very interesting about Cold War is where it falls on that spectrum - how much it feels like late-war WW2, versus how much it feels like CMSF.

Recon vehicles tend to spot faster than tanks (even in WW2), because they're usually open-topped. The difference is larger in the modern titles, of course. Dismounting crew to recce is standard doctrine everywhere, and there is nothing weird about it. The vehicle lets you get into, and importantly, out of trouble, quickly. The vehicle in most cases will also have a radio, so you can send those spots up the C2 chain. Whether the vehicle itself is heavily armed and/or armoured depends on doctrine (which is and was a fluid thing), but it's not a co-incidence that recon elements tend to be very heavily armed - whether the vehicle is a basic jeep or a Sd.Kfz. 234. The point of the firepower is typically that a battle will (should) start with both sides sending out recon elements, to find the enemy. These recon elements will inevitably clash at some point, and it's generally a good idea to win that skirmish if you can - or at least use the firepower to extricate yourself. In CM it's quite common to have a battle that starts at the actual point of main contact. That's not the case in all scenarios or every situation - a large enough map with small enough forces will create something like this "recon phase". In that situation, you have to ask yourself how important winning that recon fight is, and what resources you can afford to dedicate to it (especially in points, if this were a quick battle) - it might well be that you want to aggressively dominate the recon fight, both getting eyes on the enemy, and also denying them the terrain that would give them the observation points that they would need to spot you. If you can pro-actively win this battle-before-the-battle, you're setting yourself up to do very well from the start, so there's every justification for a fast, high-firepower recon vehicle. If there's no way to achieve this (based on terrain, force size, etc.), then recon vehicles are pretty pointless, and you're better off with just infantry eyeballs.

If you use BMP-3s incautiously, you'll see a lot of mutual kills I don't have footage of it, but my favourite was a glancing hit on the front of my Panther, that bounced off in a high, near-vertical, really slow arc, before arcing back down directly onto one of my squads.

Yup. They're also the ones with the radios in WW2 titles, if anyone does. I often use my HQs quite aggressively, spotting with them, running them back and forth between units to share spotting contacts, etc. It's a risk, obviously, but I think there's a lot you can gain from that.

Eight squares would assume no radios and voice distance, but sure - visual distance is longer than that, and is still "in C2", albeit to a worse level. There's a trade-off, was my point - you spot faster with shared spotting information, and the fastest way to share spotting information would be for the HQ to have the spots (a leader recon). Therefore, for the unit to fight at maximum efficiency, you'd want an HQ up front and spotting things (possibly with a short arc to not engage themselves). The trade-off is that putting the HQ in a position where they can spot things means that they are in danger of being suppressed, directly or from nearby HE, etc. At that point, the Leadership and other soft factors of the HQ start mattering, so a better Leadership HQ unit will have an effect on the cohesion and suppression of the unit, just not directly, and only if you're using them in a position where that will be tested.

Based on Josey Wales' testing, he didn't see a difference in the recovery from suppression based on the formation HQ's leadership value - in that sense it didn't make a difference, and the results are a binary "in C2" and "not in C2" thing. If that is the case, that doesn't mean it's not important. Suppression of the HQ unit will break C2, so a higher leadership HQ unit will stay unsuppressed for longer over the course of a firefight, and therefore maintain C2 for the rest of the formation. You could avoid this by keeping the HQ unit out of the fight, but since information is shared in steps up and down the formation, the most efficient way to get information to a squad that needs it is for the HQ to get the spot. So the price of a bad platoon leader is that they will either engage and be suppressed, breaking C2, or they will hang back and avoid the fight, which will slow the transfer of information.

This was definitely fixed, a while ago. It was actually improved over CMSF 1, in that Quick moving (what the AI defaults to) will still be covered by this, when it would not in CMSF 1

There is also the IED mine in CMSF - it works like the other minefields, but it's a single, massive explosion (with a 0% failure rate, or at least as much as mines can fail).

As always with IEDs, I think it's useful to consider the manual's failure rate as a best-case scenario. The triggerman still has to spot the target, not be obscured by dust, not be suppressed, not be distracted by a passing kitten, whatever. I imagine if you ran a thousand tests, the failure rate would be significantly higher than stated.

Yup. ATGMs are essentially one shot weapons, but if that one shot trades efficiently with a Bradley, you're up significantly. I typically try to fire one shot then Fast move to relocate. ATGMs are best used in at least pairs, and dispersed - this creates a C2 problem to solve, but it means that you can more easily score flank shots (more important for Abrams), and can't have both assets suppressed at the same time. When relocating it's important to pop back up in a different position (i.e., far from the contact marker you'd be leaving behind as you break line of sight). This means when placing ATGMs it's important to think of primary and secondary positions for them, with a covered route in between. Tertiary positions are usually not needed, since if you had a chance to use them, you're probably winning already. The BMP smoke won't block thermals, so it's no good versus Bradley's or Javelins. It will help in the infantry fight, since anything that cuts down the incoming small arms is worthwhile - in the final stages (of the optimistic scenario presented), most of the actual infantry fights will be won by the afvs - the infantry are there to spot and maybe clean up cowering targets.

Red vs Red and Blue vs Blue are both fine in CMSF multiplayer - it's just the mixed game which I'm suspicious of. In general I think I prefer Red vs Red, but that's mostly because the more advanced stuff pushes it more towards one shot kills and heavy punishment for mistakes/random surprises. To be entirely clear, I do think it's possible to win, but you have to do all the work. You can also sometimes do everything right and still lose. In the broader sense this is true for anything "lower tier" in a competitive game.

I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level. Still, if you're up for the challenge, this is the theory: Imagine a Quick Battle, where the enemy are a US Bradley platoon. These are three squads with attached assets, javelins and the Bradleys themselves. Each element outperforms you in every way. The main threats in order are then: - Javelins - Bradleys (TOW and 25mm) - Infantry So, how do you take this apart in the attack? You obviously have cheaper forces, so you can build around an infantry platoon (say, BMP-1 or BMP-2 mech infantry), and attach assets to them. - The Syrian army is derived from the Soviet army, which means the single most important asset is your artillery. Planning a good fire mission (or missions) are critical for success. The main artillery at this level would be 120mm mortars (on or off-map), ideally with a TRP or pre-planned. This assumes great recon, since the call in times are inflexible. Mortars aren't going to hurt the Bradleys, and can't be relied on to kill the infantry, but they will do an excellent job of suppressing the Javelins, so a lighter, longer fire mission is what you're aiming for. This obviously implies taking an FO. - The second most important asset are reconnaissance forces. Having a squad or two available for recon - even just doing a leader recon with the platoon's HQ and the FO - is tremendously important. You need to know where they are. - The Bradleys badly overmatch either model of BMP, so you'll need something to improve the odds. Typically Soviet platoons would have a single armour asset attached, so bung in a T-72 or T-62 there. Either should give you a chance to hole a couple of Bradleys at least, but obviously the more modern the model, the better the chance. ATGMs are also possible here - all of them can take out Bradleys, but the AT-7/AT-13 are the ones designed for use in this scenario, since they're a little more mobile. The ATGM can join in the leader recon quite effectively, especially with the better models. - Then, when the primary threats are dealt with, the BMPs can be fully engaged. There's been a lot written on these forums about keeping a chap in the commander seat to increase spotting, but I actually disagree with that (partly as you need the space for additional attachments). You should dismount BMPs later than you would with a Bradley, keeping the troops inside for a little longer, and making use of their forward-firing smoke for cover. When deployed, the BMP and squad should (at least initially) stick within 4 action spots or so, so that they can share information with each other effectively - that way the dismounted infantry are the eyes of the BMP. The BMP-2 is a significant upgrade on the BMP-1, but points may be a premium here, and the points may be better spent on the previous assets. The infantry attack is basically mopping up. With the co-ordinated artillery, armour and ATGM attacks you should have shifted the odds significantly in your favour, so quality differences in the infantry are wiped out by excessive firepower. Tactically, the BMP plays the role of the squad's HMG - it's a fire support asset, with the squad as the manoeuvre element. The thing is, this is *really hard*. It's inflexible, and relies on you using all of your assets effectively and in concert, to identify and counter each threat in turn. It relies heavily on having solid recon, and if something unexpected happens, you may not have the tools to deal with it. You also need great timing and a little luck. Blue needs none of this, so the balance is firmly in their favour. Physically then, the battle will look a little like: - Recon phase. Scouts out, find the enemy, start setting up ATGMs and plotting a fire mission. - Move the armour and BMPs into a forward position, out of sight. - When the suppression has started, the ATGM and tank can start taking out their vehicles - With the Bradleys mostly dealt with, the BMPs can roll up with infantry mounted, in line, and slowly advance under the cover of the tank and the continual suppression. - At a reasonable distance (300m?) the BMPs fire smoke and dismount infantry, who move ahead of their transports. Again they advance in line and move towards the enemy positions, whilst the mortars are still falling, under cover from the MBT. Infantry and BMPs now clean up, mopping up any survivors.

I have a weird fixation on Syria mech inf recon platoons. Not because they're good, but because they're a challenge to make useful. I quite like the British carrier platoons in the WW2 games, but they're a lot more capable.

It really depends, both on the scenario or my mood. Sometimes I feel like you can get a lot out of scenario as a tactical problem, attacking it in varying ways and trying out different ideas. Clearly the latter attempts are easier, even with varied AI plans (even just being familiar with the terrain will help), but when talking about a single player game, I'm not sure that matters. It does mean that "high scores" and the like are pretty meaningless. This is a large reason why multiplayer quick battles are nice - you're doing everything only once, ever, and you can't know what you're fighting. In any case, it's nice to attack a CM scenario like a project. Many of them will take multiple hours to complete, so you can sit down and work on them. To actually answer the question, I think I rarely if ever replay campaign scenarios during a campaign, but will certainly replay campaigns. I fairly often will replay a given scenario, particularly if it's asking an interesting question or two. Sometimes I'll replay a scenario having made changes to the forces.

Some brief, unstructured thoughts: Broadly speaking, ATGMs are like better versions of AT Guns. They're similarly hard to see, and they're countered by many of the same things (mortars and HE fire). They're a lot faster to set up and remove, so you can shoot and scoot with them, and probably should. The increased lethality means that you do need to relocate more often. A revealed position can often come under effective mortar fire within 5 minutes (regardless of which side you're talking about). Some US formations with crack FOs and the right equipment can reduce that to more like 2. With modern stuff in general, it's a lot more important to read the manual. The difference between no night vision, night vision, and thermal optics are huge, and it's not easy to see from the interface - you have to do some research to really understand it. The manual is a good place to start, and wikipedia is your friend. C2 is significantly improved. Drones take this to a whole different level, especially in black sea, but information sharing is a lot more efficient. The empty battlefield will fill up with spotting contacts fast. This is the primary strength of the US Strykers. Basic infantry and tank tactics remain the same across periods. Everyone's got better equipment, and increased firepower, but the fundamentals are identical. There's less margin for error in the modern titles, because a single chap with an AK can give a squad a bad day. IFVs are a mixed bag. The broad concept of the BMP is that it's shifting a large proportion of the squad's firepower into the vehicle. That makes the squad's firepower and headcount fairly anaemic by itself, and coordinating well with an IFV is tough. The same applies to blue IFVs, but to a lesser extent. Pretty much everyone has transport of some kind.

Sure, so there has definitely been a change. This may have been intentional, or it may have been unintentional. It's not that this is broken, it's that the threshold has been tweaked, and perhaps this has been tweaked to the wrong level. Or not.

The behaviour certainly has changed. I ran some tests with CMBN, with a squad under fire from an unspotted SMG at maximum range. The squad stopped moving on the third burst. They will stop moving immediately if they see a target, or if someone actually gets hit, but it takes them a while to react to incoming fire itself. Now, I don't know whether that's strictly a bug. It's observably less sensitive than it used to be, but the functionality does work. It's reasonable to state something like "they aren't behaving as I think they should", rather than "this is broken".

The ones we know about are road-following and/or vehicles following the one in front, which was intended to be in engine 4 in some manner. It's a shame that never came about, but obviously not everything works out.

Any cliff notes on major changes for this campaign? (or any of the updated ones really, now that they've all been done).