domfluff

The tank sop has to be preceded by really good recon, but what I do: Look at the exposed waypoint top-down, and estimate clock direction to the target position (say, 2 o'clock) Set the covered arc from the tank's current position (or any one order before being exposed) with an arc which is wider than you think you need. This arc needs to centre on the 2 o'clock position, but might run from 12 to 4 or so. Arcs are absolute, not relative, so a moving arc will move with the tank, not the target. This has to be from a prior position if you want the turret to turn before breaking cover. The turret will point at the centre of this arc, and your movement orders can be placed - clearly the last order should be hunt, so that the armour can potentially take advantage of the blocking terrain. It's still a risk, but the payoff in this case is that you save turret traverse time, which can be sufficient margin to win the exchange.

No problem with on minute turns - any arbitrary line is going to be a compromise. I do have a problem if the arc means that you spend 59 seconds of that minute holding fire against a new threat out of arc - a mistake, to be sure, but one that doesnt look all that plausible to me. I use covered arcs a lot, but mostly for a limited set of reasons - Holding fire entirely. This happens all the time. This is fantasic with HQ units that need to be sharing C2 rather than fighting, scouts, etc. Usually these are small circular arcs, sometimes these are short directional ones for facing. Ambushes and kill zones. Good when you get the chance. Aiming tank turrets. In the odd situation where this is useful (coming around a building towards a known contact, for example), this can be the difference between winning or losing a tank duel. Saving a couple of seconds of turret traverse can be all it takes. ...that's about it for me. The downsides ("what if something goes wrong") otherwise outweigh the benefits for me.

Mostly I was thinking about the earlier discussion, around the use of Target and what a platoon leader's role is - Bil suggested you could define fire sectors with covered arcs, to get around the lack of "Target" in this ruleset, to still allow for control of fires. I like the idea of that, but (I think) not with one minute turns.

What are you planning??

I really like the idea of enforcing cover arcs for my squads, but I think the reason I'd shy away from that is that is that they're very easy to screw up, and it's not 100% what the response is going to be to something outside of arc. If the unexpected happens, I'd like for my squads to be able to react, and often the covered arc will prevent or limit their ability to do so. Is that limitation realistic? I don't know, but it doesn't feel right. Would a squad told to watch a particular treeline refuse to fire on a halftrack that appears to their left? It's possible, but it doesn't seem correct to me.

To be honest, I think a lot of what might be termed "national characteristics" in ASL (or Crossfire, Combat Commander, or anything similar) are doctrinal or logistical differences, which are often baked into the unit structures, equipment, or not relevant at CM scale. For example, three-tank Syrian/Russian platoons can't effectively perform bounding overwatch in buddy-sections, since there's no easy way to break down the unit. That means that you're lead towards using them as a single unit, and bounding with six tanks total, one platoon covering the other. In a similar vein, the WW2 British infantry section breaks down into Bren group and manoeuvre element, and the default squad splits support this behaviour in-game. Simulationist design has had this argument for decades, of course - whether you should model, say, Italian soldiers as inherently worse, since they performed comparatively badly in WW2. The position that CM takes is ostensibly that Regular troops are Regular troops, regardless of nationality (which I think is actually the more complex position to take, ultimately), but clearly equipment does make a difference. Body armour, Night Vision gear, a full set of magazines, etc. certainly push a Regular US infantryman over a Regular Uncon with an AK and a hope. I think there's room for both models, but it's worth being careful how one models "Design for effect" versus Cause.

I dunno about shot down, but going by Wikipedia at least: and from the Black Sea Manual: Now, you can absolutely make the case that US armour shouldn't have APS systems, since they certainly didn't at this time. I have no idea what the logistical chain would be to get Trophy onto Abrams in June 2017, and how plausible that is, but I imagine you could argue that it's not okay. I'm not sure why you'd argue for kit that doesn't turn up in the period depicted in the game though.

To be fair though, that's pretty much how the points work out, at least for the regular army. A BMP-1 company cost about as much as a Bradley platoon, and a T-55MV or T-62 company costs about as much as a platoon of Abrams. Guards and Airborne stuff not quite as much.

Might take you up on that some time. With full expectation of losing, mind you.

I think that's true for everyone really, it's just that the Blue forces tend to be able to do a bit more.

Obviously I cant speak for Ian or Bil, but I think there's a trade-off between playability and versimilitude here - precisely where that line is will differ for each, but CM is already a long, complex game so I think it's worth being careful about increasing that too much.

Combatent specialist team combos are interesting - you have the choice of: 1 man sniper team 2 man RPG team 1 man IED triggerman That does mean that the above Large Combatant unit could be shifted around a little to keep it to 18 men in two pickups with a technical. For example: Assault 5x LMG 5x LMG Security 1x Sniper 1x Sniper 1 x Technical w/PK 1 x Triggerman Support 2x RPG 3x HQ 2x Pickup truck Obviously a triggerman without IED to detonate isn't immediately useful, but since the point here is really to develop an example/baseline tactical doctrine, it makes some degree of sense from a flexibility standpoint.

Yeah, but the manual specificially states that you can (optionally) use a target order with VBIED, when you can't. I'm suspicious of how useful that would be, given how fragile they are, but it's still true.

Yup. I've seen this before with CMFI, and it was always my fault - I'd missed installing one of the patches, or something similar.

I've found the semi-deployed ATGMs are highly variable - I had one test where every single shot they fired nosed down, regardless of conditions, but far more where the exact same team hit with every shot. In general, I haven't seen a significant increase in failure rate when semi-deployed, but I assume there is an increase there. As ever though, the easiest way to reduce mean time between failures is just to add another team. Redundancy tends to trump reliability. Kornets are certainly the only reliable AT weapon the Syrians get, and are capable of hitting Abrams from the front. The setup time does make it harder to relocate them, but not impossible. do think they shouldn't be the first choice of missile though - the extra flexibility of the Motor Rifle ones are well worth the reduced power I find. There are definitely uses for the ATGM Strykers, but I think you have to work around them, rather than with them - they're certainly not awful, but they are awkward. Oh, since we're on the subject of ATGMs, one thing I did find playing Red in Passage at Wilcox was that ATGM positions on the second row of buildings are extremely useful. In that scenario, like many in CMSF, there's no great penalty for the Blue forces to just flatten everything, so putting an entire building in between the one you're sited in and the target can be very effective - the trajectory of returning bullets tends to be flatter than the arcing slope of an ATGM, so the situation can be in the missile's favour.

As before, even if terrain or fortifications do provide a "cover save", I think it's wise to assume that they don't. I've certainly had the impression that individual soldiers die faster out of foxholes than in, but can't confirm that. CM's ballistics modelling is great. Individual bullets are modelled, and where they impact matters, on a 1:1 basis. This would imply that the physical representation of the soldier matters here. Artillery seems to be an explosion, followed by a random number of invisible projectiles that are drawn from that point. This means that whilst fortifications might offer little - or even zero - cover against the initial blast, they may offer cover against the fragmentation. In foxholes and to a lesser extent in trenches, quite a large amount of a solider is exposed. This does mean that a 1:1 representation may result in higher casualties than expected. The AI targeting centre of mass will shift this somewhat in the other direction, but perhaps not enough to counter it. Some more generic fortification thoughts: Tests I've run seem inconclusive as to how effective they are as direct-fire fighting positions, but they certainly provide good cover against indirect fire, when hiding. A 1:1 representation means that cowering or hiding soldiers will be hidden fairly well from direct fire, and nearby plunging fire. This representation also implies that foxholes are probably more protective at a higher relative altitude - since less of the man will be exposed. If you have to put them in an exposed position, stick them on a hill. Foxholes and trenches provide cover where there previously was none. Some cover is definitely an upgrade over an empty field, and allows you to shape the terrain, rather than letting the terrain shape you. Foxholes or trenches on a reverse slope defence make for a powerful position- they'll provide protection from indirect fire (pre-battle or TRPs, probably), so they have a purpose there even if they provided no cover from direct fire at all. The lack of this kind of reverse slope position was one of the major flaws of the Argentinian army in the Falklands - the forward-slope trenches could be effectively reduced by HE and Milan ATGM fire with relative ease. Split up your squads. 4-5 man teams find it a lot easier to make use of fortifications in general. So. I think fortifications are primarily anti-artillery measures, or used in situations where they're better than nothing. Ideally on reverse slopes, or to shape the terrain to your advantage. One thing I'm still unsure about is actually how best to use Wire, by doctrine or otherwise.

Playing the Syrians is always tough, but it's an interesting problem to solve - it looks like you had a good rate of return for those ATGMs. The AT-4 won't typically do a lot to an Abrams, but is fine against Bradleys and down - the missile flight time can be a problem, since a good Bradley crew can sometimes start suppressing the ATGM team before the missile hits. Mobility is key. The AT-4 is a bit awkward for this purpose, but the AT-7 and AT-13 are fantastic - even in semi-deployed mode they're worth it for the ability to pop up, fire, then maybe live long enough to run away and set up in a secondary location. It's one of the main advantages that ATGMs have over the WW2 anti-tank guns. Often that's more theory than practice, but it can work out really well. Those ATGM Strykers remain awkward to use. They often don't have the rate of fire to deal with an actual armoured attack (typically they'll kill a few, then get killed in response, unless they outnumber the attackers by quite a bit), and they aren't as small or concealable as man portable ATGMs or TOW Humvees. They're still powerful, but they have some serious downsides.

"Conventional" IED have to be activated before use. This can be activated to explode whenever anyone gets close, or Targeted to a specific unit. Either way these are set off by a Trigger man. The CMSF 2 manual says a similar thing about VBIEDs - that they'll either explode automatically in proximity to an enemy, or can be Targeted to one unit in particular. However: VBIED can't use a "Target" command in game. The spy you get with the VBIED can Target (although he has nothing to shoot with), but in testing targeting with the spy doesn't seem to have any effect on when the VBIED explodes. So... is the manual wrong here?

I do think the comments about line of sight, whilst not untrue, are something of an unfair generalisation. It's certainly true for some maps, and especially some early examples - cmbn and cmsf 1 have some pretty unconvincing maps - but others are better, or even near 1:1 with real places, so it's certainly not outside the capabilities of the game. There is definitely a tendancy towards tighter terrain in wargaming - often the tactical decisions involved in a battle are defined by the terrain, so a large flat area would be fairly uninteresting to delve in to.

Ah, gotcha. I do need to dig into the various combos a little more. I'm not really sure why the "single vehicles" can only ever be taxis either - you'd think that with all of the other downsides that uncons have, at least they'd be flexible.

TC 7-100.2 Opposing Force Tactics, like the rest of the TC 7-100 series, seeks to create a generic doctrine to represent several forms of OpFor, at different scales and with differing intent. https://armypubs.army.mil/epubs/DR_pubs/DR_a/pdf/web/tc7_100x2.pdf A core idea though, is to split the force into three elements: Assault, Security and Support. Some quick examples in different contexts: Using the above Large Combatant group as the example, this could break down as: Assault: 1x 5 man LMG 1x 4 man LMG Support: 1x 1 man HQ 1x 5 man RPG Security: 1x 3 man Sniper Technicals are probably best placed in the "Security" category, but clearly the roles are malleable in general. Since firing RPGs indoors causes the volume of outgoing fire to drop through self-suppression, and the need to have two elements to allow for bounding overwatch, I think the 2:1 ratio of rifle/LMG groups to RPGs is probably correct - three RPG teams in buildings that enter a firefight will go a long way towards defeating themselves. Additional elements added to this team, presumably through the "specialist team" tab could include: IED Triggerman Spy Spy Forward Observer Mortar team VBIED Attaching spies directly to the team is interesting, I think - adding an even stealthier element within the existing C2 structure (such as it is) is potentially pretty powerful. Doubly so if they can call in on-map mortars.

The 1.01 patch added Technicals and transport options back to uncons in quick battles. Under "single vehicles", the only option is for taxis. Should it be? It does make it quite awkward to pick up technicals or transport vehicles - you have to pay the additional formation cost, and are forced into "hq" units that dont really make a lot of sense to me in context (e.g., you can't buy a pickup truck without buying a taxi).

If you give them a facing order, they'll usually reorient along the terrain piece, which includes fortifications. That's how to fix it, usually. They're clearly taking up spots within the action spot, and finding a best fit for your move, rightly or wrongly. It's hard to tell whether there are actual "cover bonuses" or "saving throws" in Combat mission. In general, I think it's wise to assume that there isn't, and any bonus from cover is the physical interaction between projectile path and terrain piece, which includes tree trunks, rocks and foxholes. Since there's a lot of variability in flight path, you'd be able to produce a reasonable average with enough tests ("This terrain protects 80% of the time"), but that's all it would be. That means that foxholes are going to offer good defence against direct fire unless you're some distance away (since geometry is a thing - same reason why halftrack gunners survival increases with distance, and it's not just the range of incoming fire), or you're hiding/cowering inside them them.

The difference between 4 man LMG and 5 man LMG teams are that the 5 man team gets a second RPD in the unit. That's a significant boost, so if this unit is not to be mounted it probably makes sense to opt for the full 19 men. The RPG problem has a solution in the form of Engine 4's corner peeking - there's an element of randomness to it, but the squad will prioritise peeking with the heavy weapons, and putting a suitably angled Face order will usually encourage the RPG to go to the corner you need it at.

The above unit, in game: In Quick Battle terms that's fairly expensive - it costs about as much as two US Infantry squads without transport, but that's mostly the extra premium you get for hiring the Technical and Pickup groups. You can't buy individual Pickups or Technicals to add to the formation, so the correct approach would be to buy this for the entire force and then parcel them out, rather than buy the formation and pare it down - you pay the extra cost anyway, so you may as well buy more. Typical soft factors are Conscript/Green experience, with Extreme or Fanatic motivation. Leadership is variable across the board. Points without transport for the above were generated at 123, which is about same cost as a single Veteran US infantry squad with +2 Leadership, which is also common on Typical settings.