domfluff

Aside from the "platoon" being 12 vehicles, there's also confirmation bias at work - the platoon is a mobile asset, which is assigned to where it's needed. Since Combat Mission deals with the explodey parts, games scenarios are generally going to represent "where it's needed" , so you'll see more of them there than "average".

This 'un

Three campaigns, yes? UK, Dutch, Canadian? Base game, Marine and German campaigns are done.

Easiest way to figure things out is to go into the editor and play around. Squads split using the "split squads" command, and give you a quick insight into how they're supposed to be used. Other commands exist to split off AT teams, scout teams and the like. For example (top of my head, may not be entirely accurate): Basic US Rifle Platoon consists of - HQ Unit 2 x MMG 3 x Rifle squads (9 men each) The HQ unit includes a forward observer for the company light mortars and drones. The rifle squads break symmetrically, with 2x MGs, 2x grenade launchers , and sometimes one marksman, depending on the unit. Each fireteam is therefore capable of doing everything by itself (suppression, indirect fire, etc.), so the two work in concert to achieve an objective. US squad leaders have the ability to call down the company mortars, but they won't be good at it. In CMSF, they all have radios and PDAs to stay in contact, so this networking is important. Everyone has night vision equipment. Stryker (MOUT) platoons have squads that split into three teams, one with assault charges to breach walls. in urban environments. Marine platoons have a similar overall layout, but have larger squads, so split into three symmetric fireteams. They do not have full-auto weaponry, but do have decent optics, making for longer ranged, more accurate fire. Marines do not have as many Javelins as the army. UK Platoons are similar to the US, but the HQ unit includes a light mortar. They have better optics than the mainline US troops (but full auto, unlike the Marines), but have fewer Javelins. In general terms, everyone is usually mounted on something, but what they're mounted on will differ. Strykers are taxis, with excellent comms. Bradleys and Warriors are fighting vehicles. Bradleys have some anti-armour (TOWs, which I wouldn't rely on), whereas the British Warrior IFV's 30mm cannon is superb at chewing up BMPs, but balks at anything heavier than that. Marines have their AAV's, which are amphibious, massive and sluggish. Powerful, and carry a ton of guys, but very vulnerable. The Syrian infantry in CMSF2 have been built quite differently to CMSF1. In both, the Syrians work like a Soviet/Russian motor rifle unit, with their transport (BMP or BTR) being an integral part of the squad. The CMSF 2 build is more asymmetrical (and more "soviet"), in that the squad is built around an MG, and the squad has an asymmetric manoeuvre element and a support element, rather than the symmetric splits of the US squads.

The thing is, most contemporary flamethrowers were pretty bad. The Crocodile and the US M1/M1A1 are marvels of engineering by comparison - the M1's main advantage over the rest was that the design kept constant pressure in the system, so the first trigger press would have exactly the same range as the last, rather than the pressure decreasing as the weapon is fired. Flamethrowers in general are a fairly dodgy idea. They obviously have their niche, but their use-case is fairly narrow. As with halftracks in general, and everything Panzergrenadier, the elements don't really make sense in isolation. If you had a fortified building that you can keep suppressed, but has to be cleared, you can either send infantry in to die in room-to-room clearing, or roll up a flamethrower to clear it for you. I agree that it's not a great idea, but it's no sillier than the Wasp. This kind of thing is typical for most examples in WW2 - it's the Crocodile which is unusually effective.

I'd suggest it's more a question of: "What else can you do?" An ambush at point blank range doesn't give time or space for anything other than a direct assault, and if you attack through a target then you're not just re-claiming the initiative/position that you've lost, but the surrounding area. I do think it's more than "duck and cover" in terms of effective strategy, but it's also pretty much a worst-case scenario.

Yeah, Triggers are not "if-then", it's "wait here until this condition is met, then continue with your orders". In that sense they're fundamentally similar to the inbuilt "leave after" orders, but rather than being based on the clock, they're based on units in a location. You can be a little clever about it - if the assembly/waiting point is covering one flank, and you're happy for them to hang around there for the duration, then a trigger on the other flank becomes a "if they come this way, hold fast, if they go that way, go over there", but that's very map dependent. Conditions would improve the potential for scripting significantly, but the tools that exist are still pretty powerful.

Yeah, stealth doesn't seem to protect against air support.

VBIED, Combatants and Spies have civ density stealth, as per CMSF 1. The rest do no (so, technicals, taxis, fighters) Quick moves now *do* have stealth, which is a massive change. They will generate sporadic spotting contacts and shout-outs, but they can still quick move up very close with an RPG, so this is a serious threat now.

In fact, it seems stronger. Move commands before would hide them, but Bluefor would shout out "enemy infantry sighted", even without contact markers. Quick commands before would reveal them. With some quick testing, Move commands now prompt no shout-outs. Importantly, Quick commands do, but *do not reveal the uncons*, which means the AI can now use Civilian density. This is huge. Needs more precise testing for distances, etc, since I imagine Quick will be spotted from further range, but this is massive.

Civilian density seems to be working as per CMSF 1 with regards to combatants again. The patch notes only mention spies, but this seems to be functional as it was, which is really great. Testing can resume!

Most spies can't - they're just pairs of eyes. The "Spy forward observer" can though. The issue is that (it seems) like Civilian Density isn't actually doing anything, so uncons and spies can't actually do their job - hiding amongst the civilian population. I'm hoping this was one of the outstanding issues that Steve was talking about with the CMSF 2 release, and that it will get fixed soon. It does make uncons pretty terrible otherwise.

Spy has nothing to do with the VBIED. He comes with it so that you can have a "spotter" to tell the VBIED where to go, that's it.

Term has existed since at least the original Rogue in 1980 It's a useful tool to learn what you're doing, but it's also a crutch. Use it, then try to ween yourself off it. Discipline, grasshopper.

That's a different mortar bug No less critical, mind you. The one above (from 2015) is the Commonwealth Carrier platoons in CMBN acquiring 2 inch mortars from universal carriers. They Acquire the mortar, and it vanishes, but they don't have it. It really breaks that unit, since that's a large part of their tactical employment.

Yeah, the mortar bug and the (new!) issue with Civilian Density in CMSF 2 are the most egregious ones that I've come across.

Save-scumming is fine, especially when learning. Rapid iteration, etc. It's definitely something to wean yourself off though, and obviously you can't do it against humans. I think there are broadly (very broadly) two kinds of CM scenarios. Some present a puzzle-like narrative, that often are fairly linear, and may have a single best solution. The others are more sandbox-like. They tend to present you with "here is a company of strykers, here's a hill I need you to take, go". Both can be good. The former can feel more similar to tactical decision games - abstracted discussion-puzzles which may not have a "correct" solution, but usually have a ton of wrong ones. That can be really useful for creating a narrative (important if you're trying to recreate a specific battle), or exploring an unusual situation (e.g., how do you deal with an armoured attack with limited AT weaponry?). The latter tend to be more generic - you often have a force which matches the on-paper force numbers (i.e., this is a full platoon or company, with the expected force numbers, ammo and weapons), and the situation tends to be more conventional - the enemy might also represent a typical force, and the focus is on how these troops can be used most effectively. Both have a place. I think I generally prefer the latter, but it really depends on what you're after. In terms of CMBS examples - I'd put "An August Morning" in the former category, and "Into the Breach" in the latter, although the classifications are vague.

Yeah, I think it's not intended behaviour. They should be really tough to spot, and a vital part of uncon strategy - invisible spies are a really powerful advantage, even if they don't have radios.

To use the Hull Down command you have two options, but really I suggest you only use one. - Hull Down is a movement command, so place the "Hull Down" waypoint in the direction you want to move. - Typically, I will place this just over the top of a ridge crest. - From the Hull Down waypoint, place a Target order on the spot you want to be hull down towards. - The vehicle will then rumble forward and stop when it is hull down to that specific action spot. Careful selection of this point is important - you don't want to be hull down to something, which exposes you to something else. It's a really powerful tool, and the alternatives only really work as well if you're lucky with topography (doing it manually) or can see the enemy (hunt). If you place a Hull Down command without a Target order, the vehicle will move until it is hull down to the hull down waypoint. This is much harder to control. Do this: As pointed out, the risk to the exact example above is that if your hull down point isn't visible, the vehicle will crest the hill and move to the other side. You could make this move safer by moving the Hull Down waypoint to your side of the ridge, but the risk there is that you may not have LOS to the target. Personally, I take the risk, and it seems to work out fine. "Assault" is the other automated command, and is much more restrictive. I use it in specific circumstances, but it's not as powerful or universally useful as Hull Down. Other things: Smaller scenarios allow you to iterate faster. You're more likely to lose the whole game in a single bad turn, but it will be faster to pick up again. I definitely feel that smaller scenarios are useful for learning. Elite or Iron. I much prefer Iron, most people I play seem to like Elite. They're mostly the same.

CMSF 2 demo has a single tutorial mission (Stryker platoon attacking a village). I know the actual CMSF 2 manual (as with all of them) has a fully stepped-out tutorial, but I don't think the demo manual does. I don't think the CMSF 2 manual is available for download anywhere.

Armour missions were in CMSF 1, but not later games. For 155's at least, there aren't any actual-armour piercing rounds, so they'll still be using the same HE stuff. There's a debate elsewhere in the forum about this. CMSF 1 manual has: General - generic setting Armor - weights towards anti-armor rounds Personnel - weights in favor of airburst antipersonnel rounds Which for the 155's, if there is a difference, can only be differences in fuses, whether they explode above the target, or on it.

Oh boy, here we go: There are, strictly, three levels to the game AI. The individual TacAI of the units, which will cover things like reacting to fire, selecting weapons, using grenades, whatever. This is usually pretty convincing. The topmost level is user scripted per-scenario. This is something which you can edit in the scenario editor, and allows for determining where and how assigned units of troops will move. Quick battles have more generic AI plans which will inevitably do a worse job, simply because they can't be tailored to specific forces. (For example, you might select a rifle platoon of four squads and an armoured car to be in "group 5". Group 5 can then be given orders to move to X spot after 5 minutes have passed, with some modifiers for caution, speed and so forth. There's more to it than that, but that's the briefest look at things.) There's then an intermediate layer which will then control how Group 5 is actually moving, since the various settings on that order will control how cautiously it advances, and how much it uses alternating fire and movement, etc. The "micro" in CM is mostly that you have a system which simulates down to the individual solider, and that you can make interesting decisions on the level of a single squad, whilst at the same time letting you command up to something like an entire battalion of a thousand troops or so in some scenarios (most are around company sized or smaller). That means that there can be a lot of work to do per turn in the larger scenarios. It's not "micro" in the RTS sense at all. Kinda. CM is pretty easy to pick up, but very difficult to get to grips with entirely. There is a guided tutorial in the manual. It's a hardcore simulation, so "mechanics" for the most part are reflections or approximations of reality, rather than game mechanics. This often means that real-world infantry manuals and the like can be more useful than anything else. Yes. No. I'm currently doing four of them. Afewgoodmen and The Blitz seem to be the two biggest PBEM communities. It'll be fine for multiplayer. Some scenarios will not be playable, and some units will not be usable, but the player with more modules can see that in their unit selection. As above, but: Each scenario can have multiple AI plans written for it, this means there can be uncertainty in a scenario. This scripted AI is not the strongest point of CM, but it's more than good enough to represent a challenge or something that looks plausible. The first version of Combat Mission had a more dynamic AI that was very simple. It would respond to your actions to an extent, but would do so in a very simple manner. This iteration of the game has much more depth to the AI system, at the cost of losing the dynamism. Given how complex the simulation is, I suspect a scripted system is actually the best solution here. I imagine that a randomised, data-driven approach would end up with suboptimal moves in most cases. Still, human players offer the greatest challenge, of course.

That's what MikeyD was talking about. It's a diagonal arrow with two ends in the editor, and lets you select a start and end point of a linear feature. It'll draw roads (or whatever) for you, rather than having to define each tile in the road manually. You'll probably still want to go through and clean up parts of it, but it saves a lot of hassle in the early stages.

I wouldn't suggest using Target orders with snipers at all. Let them choose their own targets. What they're really good at is putting out killing power at range. They won't hit with every shot, but they will hit an awful lot more often than a machine gun burst or the like. That means that the ideal use case is to support a position, where the enemy is already under fire. If your MGs or small arms can suppress the enemy, then the snipers will finish them off quickly. In this sense, marksmen and snipers do very similar jobs, but snipers generally have larger weapons and can support over longer distances. (This is in addition to their primary role, which is as scouts. Small teams with powerful optics make great scouts). One thing that's really deceptive, and can be seen with testing, is how little of the enemy a sniper team can actually see. If you do some testing against them, it's very possible that although you may see the whole squad, the sniper team might only see one or two guys.

The specifics of the IEDs are from CMSF 1, but they seem to be identical in CMSF with the limited testing I've done so far. Civilian Density doesn't seem to have any effect at all, which is a problem. It's either a bug, or it has a completely different game effect, which is not clear. It's probably a bug. The rest of it is just observation, from 1 and 2.