domfluff

Subjective observation here. Hide appears to degrade spotting ability by virtue of keeping them down and low to the ground - they seem to have similar cycles of spotting, with the squad leader/binoculars carrier standing up occasionally to take a peek with the same period as an idle squad. If that's true, it's not the Hide command that's degrading spotting directly, so much as Hide meaning "get down and stay down", combined with it being harder to see things when crawling.

The other reason not to Fast move vehicles are similar to why you don't Fast move troops all the time - movement speed is inversely proportionate to how well they spot, and how willing they are to stop and fight. Hunt is a good go-to, but isn't the only other option - Hunt will mean they will stop at first contact, even if that contact is a random enemy crew man that pops up in the distance, which can (for example) mean your armour grinds to a halt somewhere exposed and vulnerable. I think the vehicle move order I use the least is "Quick". I make a lot of use of Slow, Move, Fast, Hunt, and especially Hull Down.

Nah, CMSF only did the BMP ports, and only after CM:A did it first.

In general, that distance is important. 2km is a long way, especially on a CM battlefield. In the WW2 titles, the german halftracks have an MG behind a gun shield, which is far more effective when placed ~1000m away from their target - the distance limits return fire and increases the effective angle that the shield protects. In CM terms then, IFVs tend to be effective as support assets, hull down, and as part of a fire plan. In general I find myself dismounting much later with Russian-type assets then I do with Western ones. Part of that is the lack of man-portable radios in CMSF - the squads rely on the BMP for that, and if they're dismounted then they're cut off. Aside from seeking hull down positions, the main safety net which BMPs have are their exceptional firepower - this is (again) muddled in CMSF, since the Syrians mostly use older kit, but easier to see by comparing the BMP-3 to the Bradley - the former will explode violently if you glare at it, but it can pour out fire and suppress anything that's vaguely likely to have infantry inside. Dismounting is always a die roll - you can never be 100% sure there's no small arms targeting your dismount location, since your visibility will always be worse when mounted up. This applies double for BMPs, since their vision is terrible, but it's also the reason why you need to lean on their radios far more. Smoke is handy to cover dismounts if there is no suitable cover. Popping the smoke, then rushing to set up MGs such that if there is to be an immediate firefight, you'll have the best chance of winning it. Western smoke is defensive, and Russian-type smoke is offensive - it will fire significantly forward of the ifv's position. Again, this is to cover the infantry advance onto the target, which means that I often find myself engaging with the BMPs whilst mounted (from behind cover, and at range), then dismount to actually fight to the objective. That way I feel like I'm maximising both my BMP firepower and offensive smoke charges, to give my comparatively weak infantry the best shot at it.

Another example of a doctrinal attack, this with a Bradley platoon: Scale here is to dismount about 2km from the objective, outside of the range of RPGs and the like, but within range of the 25mm. The dismounts are dismounted early, and make use of their ability to use close terrain to move up on the target, whilst the Bradleys and artillery provide smoke and supporting fires. You'll note in both of the above examples that particular care is taken to protect the vehicles. They both offer significant and useful firepower, but need to be used extremely carefully to get anything useful out of them.

This is actually a core tactical question, and one which does not have a best answer. Doctrines differ, but the general advice with any transport (be that halftracks, bradleys or trucks) is to dismount out of sight of the enemy, and proceed on foot. The vehicles in a tactical sense are there to redeploy quickly, possibly across otherwise open ground, and to provide protection against unexpected fires (especially mortars). That's useful as a default tactic for all transport vehicles, in all eras. Where this gets complex is when you start sticking guns on them. Your basic APC (say, the British FV432, or the US WW2 halftracks) are fulfilling the same role as unarmoured trucks, with a little more protection against unexpected fires. That's one extreme, and should be used as the above. The MG in this case is not intended to be used as a fighting platform - it's a defensive tool and one mostly of desperation. It can be used in support, typically from a hull down position, but it's rarely a great idea and should never be the primary plan. The other extreme are the varying models of BMP in CMSF and CMBS. These carry a ton of firepower and weapon systems, to the extent that they severely limit the abilities of the attached squad. In these cases, the IFV is supposed to be used as part of the squad, and therefore has to be exposed. This doctrine has some significant and obvious disadvantages, but does mean that the Russian-type squads have a significant advantage in firepower over their equivalent. Example of this. Note that the BMP and squad elements are in covered positions. BMPs have firing slits, so the squad can fight mounted, but really shouldn't. That's useful in an NBC environment, which doesn't apply here. In Afghanistan, new tactics were developed, of dismounting the troops and combining the vehicles into a flanking/support fire unit. That will be stronger tactic against irregular forces, which lack the amount of AT weaponry that a conventional army will have. Bradleys in CMSF are a bit of an outlier - they match up well against pretty much everything in the Syrian arsenal. The troops should still not engage in a fight mounted, but you can afford to be much bolder with your transport vehicles in that game. That's pretty much unique to that setting though - they're not as scary in Black Sea. Strykers in particular are useful for their electronics and networking. Paying attention to C2 links and using them as communication hubs can be very important, but this can be done with minimal or zero exposure of the actual vehicle. So... think of it as a spectrum, with unarmoured trucks at one end, and BMPs at the other, with all other APCs and IFVs in between. If you never use the weapons of a Bradley, BMP or Warrior, then you're wasting a resource. On the other hand, the more you expose them, the more you're risking the resource. The IFV concept has this dilemma at it's core, and it's not a problem with a clear solution.

It'll turn out to be a series of small walls, and you know it.

One the same subject, this book is full of examples of them, covering the range of scope and scale. There's a nice Falklands War in there. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Wargaming-Developments-Professional-Educational-Innovations/dp/1291979654/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=matrix+games&qid=1571234404&sr=8-1

I'm pretty certain I've chatted about Matrix games before, is something I'm quite fond of. Mind you, I usually get shouted down when chatting about game design on forums, so it's possible it gets lost in the chaff.

Fitness, terrain and what they're carrying - they'll tire faster if loaded with weapons and ammunition.

Judging by previous comments about the complexity of the TO&E - if you could travel back in time and convince less nations to be involved in WW2 that would be a start.

As mentioned elsewhere - although fatigue does not have a direct impact on accuracy (or similar), fatiguing your soldiers means that you won't be able to Quick or Fast move when you really need to, when mortar rounds are incoming or when you need to rush up a support weapon to a forward position. Fatigue therefore absolutely degrades your ability to fight, just indirectly.

Back on topic a little, the second-order consequence of fatigue is that you won't be able to move Quick or Fast when you really need to - in situations where you need to move up to support a fight, to get the hell away from incoming spotting rounds or when you've gleefully wandered into a kill zone. It doesn't directly hinder your shooting, but it can certainly degrade your ability to fight, albeit indirectly. In a similar vein - the Leadership stat of the HQ unit doesn't help your subordinate squads recover from suppression (counter-intuitively for wargamers), only the active C2 link matters. On the other hand, a high leadership HQ unit will itself stay unsuppressed longer, meaning that it will keep C2 links active for longer under fire, so the second-order effect is more or less the same thing.

Avoiding this is what the "Combine Squad" command is for. The four man squad above (presumably has taken losses) is split over two action spots because they are in two teams of two. Combine Squads would make that one team of four, in one action spot. Why they're far apart? If the squad has taken losses you'll see that, and particularly if they'd taken losses to the centre of three teams. Otherwise they're just taking up covered positions where they find them, and each time has found a position in an opposite direction.

One thing that I'd like to be considered with any tests are precisely what path incoming rounds are taking. With a glass windshield I'd expect to see multiple penetrating hits that do nothing, since some rounds will go through the windshield and then into the thin air (since there's not going to be the concept of glass shattering in CM, it's likely to be modelled as a thin layer of "armour") If there are repeatable differences between glass-up and glass-down, that's indicative as well, but it's worth considering trajectory too - windshield up will have more "penetrations", but penetrations which don't actually hit anything are meaningless.

I use Fast movement a lot. The TacAI does as well, during Assault commands - the moving element moves Fast whilst the other element is in overwatch. The order prioritises movement above all - you're the least likely to stop and open fire on available targets, so you have the most control over your actions. Some theoretical examples: 1) I'm developing a firefight. One squad in the platoon has made contact, and is exchanging fire with the enemy. I decide that I need to send a fireteam to a specific piece of cover to add to the outgoing volume of fire, and I don't want them engaging from any other location. Fast move is the best way to do that, quickly and with as much certainty as possible. 2) The lead squad of a platoon comes under fire. The rest of the platoon is in good position to return fire, but the lead squad is cowering out of C2, so can't share spotting contacts, meaning that the enemy has not been spotted by the rest of the platoon. My HQ element will Fast move between platoon elements to pick up the contacts and Fast move back to share them to the other squads. 3) Incoming mortar rounds. Priority number one is being anywhere but here, so you don't want to start engaging in a firefight. Fast moving tires them out, obviously, which will degrade their movement (Fast->Quick->Move->Slow). It's also a large commitment - if your order was unsafe (e.g., the fireteam element you've moved up to support is flanked by an enemy MG), then you've probably just lost that element. You should therefore use it in situations where you're confident about the move, and where you are not expecting to cover large distances or make multiple Fast moves in the future.

Now, is this biased towards Blue? Sure, it's Shock Force. There are very few plausible asymmetric scenarios that feel even, since designing and balancing those are really difficult. I do think the Red forces here have an interesting challenge though, and I do think it's winnable.

Had a quick look at this from the Syrian perspective. It's definitely tough, but I don't think it's unwinnable. A couple of thoughts first: The terrain is a heavy urban environment, looking like this: This is not terrain where Javelins excel, and as long as you don't keep the T-72s on the main streets, they shouldn't be a massive problem. Second: It's worth understanding that the objectives in this scenario have minimal overlap. The "Residential Area" and "City Centre" are the only ones which are shared, and all three are worth 50 points. In expectation, you'll be earning 100 points each regardless, and fight over the last 50, which the Red forces will start in control of. Unit objectives are similar - Red gets 190 points for killing Blue, whereas the Blue forces get 100 points for Red armour, and 100 points for Red infantry. That split is important. That means that there's no need for Red to "attack my fist with their faces" - they're the defensive partner here. The overall plan for Red should be a defence in depth - pockets of resistance to bleed the Blue forces slowly as they creep through the town. BMPs supporting squads, with the intention of fighting defensively in a series of point-blank ambushes. The armour needs to be in hidden positions and used as a mobile reserve - winning firefights at close range with devastating firepower. They overmatch everything the US has, assuming you don't allow them long sight lines. Good scouting is going to be very important, so that this mobile reserve can be used. The Red forces consist of two platoons of BMP-2 mech inf, and two platoons of T-72s. That's definitely more armour heavy than the terrain would suggest. Finding the best way to use this armour is the axis on which this scenario is going to rotate - if the armour is thrown away then Red will just lose. Secondarily, Red will be dependent on using their BMPs well. It's going to be incredibly important to lay down a ton of fire with autocannon. The Blue forces have three platoons of Strykers and a platoon of MGS Strykers. They do have air support later, which is something that Red doesn't have any good answer to here. Blue outnumbers them in infantry, and if they're allowed good sight lines and positioning then they'll win. If they're instead forced into pushing into unscouted terrain and come up against the kind of devastating firepower that the T-72 can put out, then they can do pretty badly.

A couple of thoughts: - Short covered arcs are the way to go, as noted. - Your move order into position should be Move or Slow, and ideally Slow. It only has to be for the last action spot or two. - 200m is really close. Are there any positions further out? - Forests are a bunch of telephone poles with blobs on top of them, and the engine seems them as such. There's only so much cover a pole will give you. - The ground cover matters. Trees help, but trees on grass tiles will obstruct less than trees on forest tiles. - You don't need to be in the actual tree line to see out of a forest - if there's a position deeper inside a forest that still gives adequate LOS then that is preferable. - The ideal position on paper is usually a building. In practice, that's often *not* the ideal position, because it can be obvious, and subject to speculative fire. Skylining is not explicitly modelled, but it's still an issue - crawling over a bare ridge will get you spotted pretty quickly.

Bocage fighting is tough. You're fighting at close range, with fire that can come from any angle. Cover is everywhere, making reconnaissance difficult and fire superiority hard to achieve. Your avenues of approach are predictable, which means they can be covered with mines and machineguns - mistakes can be extremely fatal, very quickly. These are the problems, but also the solutions. Bocage fighting presents a series of tactical problems to solve, each slightly different. It's vitally important to engage with minimal forces. Scouting and recon-by-fire are very important, and the latter is pretty much the best use for armour. Making your own approach routes through Rhinos or engineers can be extremely powerful, but will give away your position. Ultimately, the "find, fix and flank" formula still holds, but the "fixing" can often have a more manoeuvrist meaning. You may not be able to fix them in position with fire, but you might be able to control the approach routes and trap them into a position passively. i.e., instead of suppressing them behind the hedgerow, if instead all of the connecting reinforcement routes are isolated, then they're just as fixed in position. Your flanking force is the lead element, and ideally they're coming from an unexpected direction. To throw grenades, area fire inside a 30m range - indirect weapons like grenades and mortars can target out of LOS, just to the other side of a hill crest or hedge. Try not to fixate on map "sides" - since the terrain is complex, an enemy that is spread across it's width will be isolated and unable to support themselves. That means that there will either be plenty of space to manoeuvre in, or any enemy you meet will be extremely weak. Caution is the thing. If you charge a squad across a covered field, they're dead. Proper scouting is vitally important, and moving by inches if necessary. "Hunt" is often not a great choice of movement order, since you'll typically be moving from cover to cover, and it's going to be more important to get to that cover, than to stop and fire on contact.

In general: US halftracks are horribly vulnerable, and not good as a fighting position. They're fine if you can guarantee fire superiority, but that inherently limits the situations where this can be used. German halftracks have their gun shield, which can be quite effective. I do not unbutton these. Instead I allow the gunner to pop up and down as appropriate, minimising their exposure. The intention here is to fight from distance (500-1000m) and firmly to the front, limiting the possible angles of incoming fire to a few degrees. Any crossing fire will kill the gunner quickly. Elevation and ridge crests certainly help. The halftrack is a supporting arm, and a method of getting an HMG into a supporting position quickly, to cover a move. It's not a primary combat element.

Depends how well you know them. The closer your relationship, the more it reverts to expletives, grunts, or a combination of the two.

"Brit" is roughly equivalent to calling an American a "Yank". As in, you can do it, it's not offensive, and you'd understand what the other person is saying, but it's neither accurate nor particularly polite. (Worth pointing out or getting upset about? Shrug, I don't know.)

The map should possibly be quite a lot wider - the wider you have the map, the more choice you'll have for approach routes, etc., if that's appropriate.

(Again, all very broadly. These all follow from the basic 3:1 ratio. All examples are from the perspective of the attacker) Platoons will rarely be assigned a decisive objective, independent operations on the CM scale are limited to things like patrols or reconnaissance. Typically, they're doing a job to support a company move (e.g., moving to this unoccupied hill to provide cover for second platoon's movement). Companies typically have one main objective, using their platoons to support each other in taking it. (Assault this hill) Battalions therefore typically will have two objectives. This might be "Lead an attack against this hill, then defend it against expected counterattack", but it might be "Lead an attack against this hill, then continue the attack against this other hill". Brigades will then typically have three, etc.