domfluff

They are still supposed to proactively avoid HE fire. Baseless speculation, but if they were getting HE fire from the rear, then the bocage is doing nothing to protect them, so there would be some logic in a panicked run through. I've shelled the near side of bocage with direct fire HE (e.g., infantry guns) since the patch, recreating the scenario where I was reliably able to replicate this, and they do not evade forward now.

I think I'd like to clarify the "zero casualties" remark a little: Take a basic react to contact/squad attack. The lead element comes under fire and goes to ground, then the rest of the squad builds up a base of fire, suppresses the target, clears them out and gets on with their life. Assuming proper movement discipline, you can't do much about the initial contact - losing a chap here might be impossible to avoid. You also can't suppress people with 100% certainty, since there are too many random or unknown factors, so it's always possible to lose people randomly whilst engaging in the firefight, or whilst assaulting. However, you can prepare for the situation, and take every step to minimise losses. I can make sure that the trailing element has LOS to the lead, so that when they go down, the trailing element can react straight away, maximising their chances. I can make sure that I'm not running everyone at the same time, so that they are best placed to react. I can use the tools I have to put down the most suppression I can, and can make an informed guess as to when is good time to assault. So, it's not that taking casualties is per se a problem, but it's certainly possible to do everything right. I don't think it's all that useful to think about things in terms of "I only need to expend 3 men to take this position", instead "I did everything right and only lost 3 men". That means that acceptable (indeed, expected) casualties are hard things to give a rule of thumb for. Clearly some situations are more bloody than others.

I always play aiming for zero casualties, especially single player. That obviously doesn't always work out.

So, firmly speculating: Thematically, increased fire accuracy would be the HQ pointing out targets and coordinating fires, possibly with a laser pointer in the modern titles. That means, if there is an effect, I'd expect any platoon-level bonus to only be seen with an active C2 link. Further, I'd expect this to probably be a flat bonus, as suppression seems to be, rather than something related to the leadership values of the platoon leader. That means that the main effect would be per-unit, I expect. A real test of this is probably to create units with only small arms (perhaps something like the straggler platoons in CMFB), with set values and varying leadership, and then running the hundreds of tests needed to show this.

These look great, thank you

Yup, the manual does say that. To my knowledge this has not yet been demonstrated in any tests. This doesn't mean there is no effect (and indeed, there will definitely be an indirect effect, as maintaining C2 will reduce suppression).

It's still true though - the main gun of a battleship would still be an effective weapon against anything afloat, it's the delivery method that's the issue. This isn't true for ATGMs, and whilst it's possible to discuss this in terms of scale, that's inevitably an argument with sliding boundaries. ATGM countermeasures are usually extremely cheap compared to ATGMs, and allegedly pretty effective in percentage terms, based on the available data. Now, in terms of hard data, it's the case that the trend - particularly from experience in Ukraine - has been that heavier IFVs seem to be needed for peer on peer conflict, and that tanks are still useful, even as the modern battlefield becomes more lethal. Whether that's always the case is a different question, but experience of fighting from <<current year>> would suggest that giving up armour now is not the way to win a peer on peer tactical fight, at least from a wargaming sense.

In Josey Wales' testing, he didn't see any direct correlation between Leadership rating and firepower output. Firefights being what they are, there will be an indirect correlation - if your guys are spending less time cowering, they'll be putting out more fire over time. Higher leadership squads will therefore put out more effective firepower, even if there is no direct effect. The same applies to the leadership of an HQ element - the Leadership rating of the HQ doesn't appear to have an effect on the platoon as a whole, but being in C2 does. Cowering will break C2, so a well-led platoon HQ will stay in contact with the rest of their platoon more often, which means the platoon will recover from suppression faster on average, meaning that they'll put out more firepower on the whole.

What have bunkers ever done to you?

Bootie is the chap, and yeah, it's the main thing. It took a ton of work, I imagine.

This is the main depot now. The Battlefront one was consolidated. There have been or are other sources, but the Scenario Depot and this forum (typically for WIP stuff) are your best shout.

There is definitely room for improvement in the Salang Blues campaign (and agreed about being painful going back), but it's also the only attempt I've seen for that kind of thing. The nice thing is the build towards "professionalism" - especially the briefings where they start as a handwritten note, and get more sophisticated. One thing that CM:A has over CMSF is the range of low-end weapons - you can go from Lee Enfields and Bren guns up to AKs and RPGs. The demo-charge equipped uncons are also sorely missed in CMSF. Still, the basic idea is sound, and it's worth a look. It's something I've been meaning to tackle for a long time, but have never gotten around to it.

In CM Terms, Salang Blues is a Mujaheddin CM:A campaign, with a lot to like about it: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-afghanistan-2/cm-afghanistan-campaigns/salang-blues-campaign/ You start with a poorly equipped rebel force, ambushing a convoy, and this escalates - initially the convoys are lightly defended, then they start being better protected. You start with bolt action rifles, and eventually build to RPGs and the like. Some mission have helicopter support, so you need to extract before this comes in, etc. In terms of source material, The Other Side of the Mountain is probably the single best resource for you. The Bear Went Over the Mountain isn't bad either, but getting the words from the source is better for this purpose. The book is full of tactical vignettes, and divides up the scenarios into types - Ambushes, Raids, Attacking Strongpoints, etc. http://www.tribalanalysiscenter.com/TAUDOC/Other Side of Mountain.pdf Obviously the subject matter is the Soviet war in Afghanistan, but the principles are the same, and there's plenty of material to adapt for a CM-scale battle.

If one of you wants to use a DLC unit, you both have to have the DLC. On the unit selection screen you can press the spacebar to see what module a given unit is from.

Which has been the conclusion before, until ERA was developed. Javelins in CM have no defence - if top-attack APS can and do become a typical thing (or any other defensive measures which don't currently exist), you'll be right back to wanting a tank main round. That was my point - you're more than capable of getting by without an MBT, as long as you have the massive technological edge that the US and NATO forces enjoy in the CM titles. There's no reason to expect that to continue.

Infantry squads have more sets of eyes than an FO team, or a tank crew. The mechanics of spotting are obfuscated, but they're clearly decided per-soldier, and there is a random element. All things being equal, a squad is making more dice rolls, and therefore has more chance of seeing something. In addition, all things are not equal. US rifle squads that pick one up will carry the Javelin CLU, which has tremendously powerful spotting abilities - to the extent that they remain useful even if they have no missiles. They are some of the best optics available in the game. You'll likely see similar or better results with other purpose-built spotting kit, for example the M1151 Reconnaissance Humvee with the LRAS3 system in CMBS. Now, should your SOP be to lead with an infantry squad? Not necessarily. Spotting passively requires time and location, and a smaller FO team will be harder to spot, and will not reduce your available combat force by devoting a squad (and perhaps a Javelin) purely to spotting duty - sitting quietly in a location with good visibility is pretty much what you want to be doing with an FO, whereas a squad is a manoeuvre element. Further, the FO isn't a scout. Their job is to control fire missions, and therefore they need information relayed to them through the C2 network. They don't need to be spotting the enemy, as long as they can call down fire onto areas where fires are needed. Heh. So, step aside from the world of Javelins and Abrams tanks for a second, and look down a couple of rungs. Ukraine vs Russia or Syria vs Syria, perhaps. At that level, access to ERA can become a serious benefit, and APS is a "magic shield", as per reports in Ukraine. ERA is no good against tandem warheads, and APS in CMBS has no protection against the top-attack Javelin, but if you don't have access to that (or, more importantly, if defences exist to defeat these), then suddenly this isn't true anymore. There is no plausible defence against the main round from an MBT of any reasonable size, and that doesn't look like something which is likely to change any time soon. In “Lessons Learned” from the Russo-Ukrainian War by Phillip Klaber, he lists four tactical lessons, applicable (and predictable!) from CMBS: - Ubiquitous Presence of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles - Increased Lethality of Indirect Fires - ATGMs and Armor’s Counter-revolution - Declining Survivability of Light Infantry Vehicles That is to say: - UAVs are used en masse, especially to plan and direct artillery. Not necessarily for Precision attacks, as in the US, but for sighting massed bombardments. - Indirect fires are called faster, and with increased numbers. Since these are co-ordinated over UAV, indirect fire is more important than ever. - The above mentioned technological advancements - first ERA, then APS, have fought back against the supremacy of ATGMs predicted since 1973 or so. - Conversely, IFVs are more suspect than in previous conflicts - there's a push towards developing heavier APCs/IFVs, since light armour is so vulnerable. Infantry are fighting dismounted, without direct support from their vehicles. As you can see from CMBS or CMSF, fighting without a BMP strips the squad of much of it's needed firepower. So... no. ATGMs do not make tanks obsolete, any more than they did in the Sinai. The game has certainly changed, but it's not as simple as "you can do without armour", in a purely tactical, wargaming sense. Now, what the role of the British army should be, and what's motivated this announcement are very different questions. Can you get away without them? Sure, if you can guarantee that you stay at least one generation ahead of the armour/anti-armour race at all times, and that this is even possible conceptually. The minute that isn't possible, you run into major problems.

Yeah, individual M2 humvees appear to be M16-carrying. M2 humvees in the supply platoon are not, and have M4s.

The humvee crews I've just spotted with M16s are the (M2) variants, which are apparently Marines-module vehicles when added individually. Could they only be in USMC TOE?

Ha, oh wow. No idea why that could be. Sort-of on topic, one of my favourite CMSF 1 oddities:

If you play any side in CBMS, or against Blue in CMSF, AI mortars in particular can be very responsive - with a well-sited enemy FO, spotting rounds are a common response to revealing your position. In general, forces that depend on artillery (anything Russian or Soviet based), I find that deciding on a solid fire plan upfront is one of the most important aspects to the plan, and will typically devote a lot of time to working this out. TRPs in this case are essentially doing the same job as preplanned bombardments, but even with long call times you can and should predetermine what most of your guns are doing, with the possible exception of on-map or company attached mortars. I'm not sure I agree that the british in CMBN/CMFI need TRPs to work. Your standard support are the 25pdrs, and they take a typical FO about 10 minutes to call in (5ish with a TRP). 10 minutes is far too long to react to unexpected troop movement, but that's not what they're for - it's more than fast enough to plan an attack in advance, using the fires to block reinforcement lines, deny a base of fire or suppresd the actual target.

Didnt see this topic when this came up before in another thread. The US will withdraw from the crossroads and exit if you don't get a wriggle on. The road presents enough of a bottleneck that if you approach this overly cautiously, you may never see some proportion (or even all) of the Americans before the mission ends. The briefing dows warn about being too slow here. That doesn't mean that you have to be reckless - you have more than enough tools, if this is approached correctly. The reason this came up is that I think this is a great example of what "remain mounted" means in the context of the Panzergrenadier Commandments. A very valid approach to this mission is to send a platoon (possibly with attached weapons) to bypass the crossroads whilst still under the cover of darkness, setting up in a blocking position on the road. If you dismount too early to build up for the attack, you can end up delaying the whole thing for too long and failing to get anywhere.

The speed and accuracy of an artillery strike will depend on the skill of the FO, but also their vision on the target. Partly that's obfuscated by the spotting system, but some things are clear (e.g., Laser Designators will improve this, if the FO has LOS to the target). Hide is basically "get down and stay down" in practice. If the FO is lying down, their vision over the target is inevitably going to be reduced, so Hiding an FO during the spotting phase is (probably) going to make that worse.

There are campaigns run over the forums at The Few Good Men. These have a variety of rulesets, but they're always separate from the game. That's not a bad way of doing it, mind you. I've posted before about the idea of running a Combat Mission campaign as an Engel Matrix, and I still think that's a pretty good idea. You need a third party to manage that, but you could run a convincing campaign with as little as three people.

F12 is "select last unit" (apparently!). It doesn't look like you can rebind that function. I tried adding: //SELECT LAST UNIT <E>(something here) Into the hotkeys file, on the off-chance, but that didn't seem to work.

I think there's some interesting nuance in the decision - for example, the TURMS-T isn't going to be firing multi-spectral smoke, which means it's going to be firing smoke that it can see through. In a fight against something without thermals then, that could be a major advantage. The T-90SA does have a laser warning receiver as well, which is a thing. The PBEM this was actually for is over - it was a Medium sized Quick Battle on one of the largest stock maps in CMSF, at midnight. My opponent went for quantity, mostly T-55MV and BMP-1 against my two platoons of TURMS-T and two platoons of BMP-2. I had an AT-13 platoon refusing one flank, and the recon platoon managing the other, with the intent of cutting up the middle with the two mutually supporting T-72 platoons with 120mm mortars in support. Soft factors weren't much changed from "typical", so mostly Green or thereabouts. As it turned out, the thermals proved decisive within the first five minutes or so, dominating the older armour. I don't think they actually fired at me for the whole game, leaving the survivors hiding in a village, waiting to be flattened by artillery. Overview: Last defensive position: So... not much of a battle really, and one firmly won in the setup screen. Enemy armour was a mix of T-72AV an T-55MV. I still think the T-55MV is pretty good value for money, but obviously far outclassed here. I was concerned about the high ground to my far right - for some reason I couldn't set a delayed fire mission from the on-map mortars (we agreed no art for the first four minutes, since it was a meeting engagement), but I wanted to use mortars to deny that high ground to any AT-13/AT-14 with their thermals placed up there, even if they were only there as spotters. One thing I did realise was that the FO without night vision was pretty useless, but a T72 Commander could do the job almost as well - using their thermals to call in fire was the sensible option, and would "only" add about four minutes delay. I was tempted to go for Syrian special forces or airborne, but given the large map and flat terrain, the armour fight was always going to be the centre of gravity.