domfluff

1 - For when you have US units with Ukranian, laser-guided artillery 2 - For aircraft with laser guided bombs and other munitions - e.g., the Paveways that the F-16 and F-15's carry. I haven't tested this, but whilst it should be possible for the aircraft to lase these targets themselves, I'd imagine that you'd shave off some minutes by doing it from the ground. Worth running through some tests with "Point" targets to see.

1. Yup. The US system will be GPS guided, so will be less accurate be definition. Those values are for civilian GPS, but (from memory) the maximum theoretical possible resolution is something like 2m. The control surfaces of each projectile should make a difference though. The other difference is that GPS targets the ground, whereas the laser point will target the vehicle. That will mean that any laser warning receiver on the vehicle will light up, but also that the GPS will have difficulty hitting a target that subsequently moves. 2. I believe the Orlan-10 does, the smallest Russian one definitely doesn't. Not sure about the middle one. 3. Definitely. It's the major reason to do it. Strong EW will prevent any satellite comms, Medium will prevent handheld satellite comms, but vehicle systems will be degraded. 4. Yup. It never stops them entirely, but the strongest EW degrades them the most. 5. Pass, but that might be possible to test, or at least to get a rough idea.

That's CMSF

I was thinking the other day that "Occupy for X minutes" would be a huge thing to add to CM - it would allow for a ton of missions to be created (searching for x, rescuing a downed pilot, etc.) - things which currently have to abstract through touch objectives or "hold till the end of the scenario" objectives.

All true, but this is useful in the game as well, for a few reasons. Two men are certainly harder to spot and hit than four, but four will spot faster themselves. Four men with an LMG (or three with an RPG-7) also have a chance to to defend themselves through fires, or alternatively put out effective recon by fire. The spacings implied by the above are sensible primarily for the sharing of spotting information (so that the rest of the platoon can engage more effectively), and to maintain C2 - usually the first shots aren't kills (or at least total team annihilation), so the main thing that dictates who wins a firefight is suppression - C2 links play a huge part in winning that suppression battle. If I'm carrying out a recon on a suspected or known enemy position, I'll decide on a few things - an approach route, a safe area to recombine after movement ("Objective Rally Point"), and then the actual line of attack. In this case, I'll often recon with the platoon HQ unit, with as much stealth as possible (short covered arcs, slow movement, etc.). The reason to use the HQ are twofold - first, any spotting contacts will be passed down to the platoon the most efficiently, and secondly the HQ has the ability to call in indirect fires if the situation warrants it. Situations where I would do this are ones where I'm pretty confident in what I'm facing, and where I'll see them. This is down to prior recce, pre-battle spotting contacts or the briefing. If there's more ambiguity, or you're Moving to Contact, then this is a terrible idea. One thing that's important to consider in the 2 vs 4 man debate is that there are two defined types of recon. "Passive" recon is the more intuitive, and generally takes a long time and relies on stealth. "Active" recon doesn't rely on stealth, is an awful lot faster, and instead uses firepower to protect and gain information. "Recon by fire" is clearly an Active recon task, but so can be probing attacks or raids. "Fighting for information" is the term, and it can be pretty useful in CM terms. It generally relies on heavy firepower and mobile forces - WW2 US Cavalry units with endless .50 cal MGs are a good example, as are the various WW2 German armoured cards with large calibre weapons.

Default with a modern us rifle platoon (3 squads, two mgs) would be something like: Wedge formation. You're leading with two squads, leaving one safe in reserve. Each squad is split into two fireteams of 4/5 guys. One of these fireteams are your scouting element. Individually, how these squads moves (continuous/bounding/alternating) is a trade off between speed and security. Each forward scouting fireteam maintains visual contact with it's parent squad, and ideally visual contact with the other scout team. Each scout team moves alternately as well. Visual range dictates distance. Open ground means these can be more widely spaced, complex terrain will dictate a tighter grouping. The hq element remains in c2 with the stationary part of the squad. Technology and terrain will dictate distance here, but staying in shouting distance (6 squares, I think?) is a reasonable assumption. MGs stay with the HQ. When contact is made (hopefully by a forward team), there should be at least one other team, if not two which can pick up spotting contacts and return fire. The HQ element should be active - their job is to maintain C2 to keep the volume of fire up, and to pick up and share spotting contacts - running them over to the engaged squad will help both of these, and taking one or both mgs with them will allow for a base of fire to be created. The two man scout teams are useful with us ww2 squads, but aside from that I mostly use them when I need to split off an element to get ammo, buddy aid, etc., or when stealth is a priority against a known enemy position. As actual scouts they're pretty bad - two pairs of eyes and usually no radios, so they're mostly useful to reveal positions by getting shot at, which isn't a great strategy in general.

Worth mentioning that according to testing, the HQ's leadership will only affect the HQ unit itself - it doesn't filter down. According to @Josey Wales''s work, the suppression resistance that commanders give troops is only reliant on having active C2 links, and not dependant on any Leadership stat. Since C2 can be broken by suppression, this does mean that a high leadership HQ unit will maintain C2 for longer under fire (since it will stay unsuppressed for longer) - so a high leadership HQ is better at leading from the front, whereas a bad leader is better left safely behind cover, letting the squads get on with it (but maintaining contact). So it works out to being a similar effect, but backwards, and only if you are careful about maintaining command and control.

There aren't many Dutch videos out there. Here's a quick one, but it's not all that indicative. From memory: The main thing tactically with the Dutch is that they have decent armour and infantry fighting vehicles, but little in the way of actual infantry - that means that in the wrong situation they can be fairly brittle. The Dutch campaign is pretty great.

There are a ton of ways to do this. One option would be to GM this as an Engle Matrix game, with the GM creating battles to suit the situation (you could use existing maps, so this creation process doesn't need to be that long. You'd want to standardise on a points system for the battles, but that's fairly straightforward to do.) Briefly. Matrix games are gm-run things, where each turn the players submit Arguments, and reasons why these will succeed. This is a quick example of a matrix-only game, but you can see how it can be used to generate meaningful battles: https://balagan.info/missing-general-an-engle-matrix-game-battle-report A practical (small) CM example off the top of my head: Situation, turn 3 (this is mostly narrative fluff, but since that's what Matrix games are all about, that's important). German player lost the previous battle and needs to regroup and re-arm. Their AT ammunition is getting significantly low, and their supply lines are in jeopardy. The town of Fullofpixeltruppen is on a key supply route. There is a simple sketch map of the surrounding area that both players have access to, and both players will have clearly defined campaign goals, that aren't important for this example. Both players will have a TO&E at the start, which is not tracked explicitly, but in terms of vague percentage losses, or removed entirely. (US player) Change to matrix:I send 2nd platoon to conduct a probing attack at night into the village of Fullofpixeltruppen Specific benefit desired: We will learn of the enemy strengths and weaknesses, and take out key assets (AT guns) in preparation for the main assault. Support from matrix: 2nd platoon is well-rested. The enemy are fleeing in disarray following the last battle. The initiative is ours. (German player) Change to matrix: My focus will be to get the supplies through safely. I'll bring up 2nd company to halt the retreat in a safe position and send out a force to take hill 217 with artillery. Specific benefit desired: My forces can resupply, and set up artillery fire and TRPs onto key terrain over the surrounding area - the village, the river crossing and the crest of hill 312. Support from matrix: My artillery is untouched, my men are well trained and the supplies are in really fast trucks. (submitted in secret) The GM takes these arguments and considers them. It's important that the arguments should not be mutually exclusive. The US player has no forces on hill 217, and hasn't mentioned it, so it's reasonable to rule that this move from the Germans will succeed. The rest of the German argument is pretty weak, and more or less reads as "I stop running away when I can". Since the US player is not explicitly pursuing the Germans, it's reasonable to suggest that the fleeing forces will drip out, but won't take much of a part in this battle. This means that the generated scenario here will be: Probing attack. Night mission, weather will be randomised with a die roll, but weighted towards being fine. US forces: - Rifle platoon, with priority of fires from the company mortars (no other action is happening here, and they're available) German forces: - Stragglers and malcontents, not quite a platoon in size. - AT Gun platoon - Artillery with a TRP All German forces will be low on ammunition and motivation. German infantry stragglers will also have some percentage losses. The mission objectives will be Spot and Destroy objectives for the US, centred around the AT guns. There will also be some points for killing Germans. Priority are the guns and minimising losses. German victory will be for destroying US forces, and occupying the town. Assuming standardising to 1000 points, then something like: German: Destroy (all) 800 Occupy 200 US Spot (AT Guns) 200 Destroy (AT Guns) 400 Destroy (Remaining Germans) 400 In practice, the GM would choose a sensible looking map, and set up the objectives and choose units to match the above. Stick them in the setup zones, which will be determined by the map - in this case, the German setup zones will be a lot more restrictive. GM then sends the scenario file and briefings to each party. It's probably useful if both players share their PBEM password with the GM, and all three players share a dropbox folder, so that everything is GM-accessible if needs be (but particularly the outcome). *** What's worth defining before you start though is: What are you trying to achieve? Campaigns have multiple purposes - they can provide context for battles, produce a narrative, they can force you to make longer term decisions about preserving forces, etc. Campaigns can be fully fledged wargames all by themselves, but they can also be pre-set tree campaigns, or fluffy narrative campaigns just as easily. What I really like about the Matrix game concept is that it's a powerful tool for applying some structure to an otherwise arbitrary narrative.

This has more information about Canadians in CMSF 2 than pretty much anywhere else:

CM is a hard, unforgiving game, which demands high concentration over long periods, and is more than happy to slap you when you do something stupid. That means that it's a perfect recipe for burnout. I know I personally tend to go in fits and starts - I'll have long periods of a ton of Combat Mission, and periods where I poke very little of it. This is a fundamental issue with CM's design choices. It gives you a ton of control, but also asks you to do an awful lot. I do find it's better to try to stop and refocus, going over the same situation a few times from different levels. e.g., one of the lead squads in a platoon on an approach march comes under fire. First - I'll consider the situation from the squad's position. Just focusing on the squad and the fireteams within. Get them to cover, return fire, see what assets you have available and take stock of the situation. Consider that for the full minute of playback, then make the orders. Second, rewind time and consider the same from the perspective of the platoon. Thinking especially about how the platoon HQ can establish C2 and get any or all of the spotting contacts that the squad may have made, and also make sure the platoon HQ is in C2 with the squad in contact to bolster their morale. At the same time, consider getting the immediate platoon assets (e.g., platoon MGs) online. Usually that's enough for the immediate contact. After this crucial minute, you'll start considering whether the squad can handle this by themselves, whether you need to use the other squads in the platoon to help, or whether it's too much for your platoon to deal with, and what to do about that - breaking contact or thinking about things from the company commander position. I definitely think it's worth thinking about things tactically from a platoon level, as above, considering the battle as a series of separate platoon actions (which will be mutually supporting, directly or otherwise). These platoons might well have attached assets, either formally through the Quick Battle/Scenario designer or informally through "This squad of engineers will go with this platoon". The initial plan of manoeuvre is what sets these mutually supporting platoons up, which means your company or battalion level (whatever the top level is) thinking should mostly be up-front, or during the early stages of the battle.

The above is a demonstration of the power of manoeuvre when it all goes right, combined with some old fashioned hubris. Completely understandable, but a devastating mistake to make, and one which he may not recover from.

You can know what you're doing and still fail horribly. @Hapless is one of the better CM youtubers, and makes some really great videos. They often dive heavily into reading the terrain and planning, which is really a huge chunk of the game. Also sometimes this happens:

Meeting Engagements in CM are frequently a problem - rushing to grab the centre is neither particularly authentic, nor particularly satisfying - attack/defend scenarios are often a little better. The more interesting meeting engagement setups tend to have distinct "mine" and "yours" objectives - both sides then have to consider their attack and their defence, which produces something much more reasonable.

Interesting. I wonder if the fact the FO is actually a JTAC has anything to do with it? Also what the experience level is for the mortars - it's not really possible to test this without the full game though. I wouldn't expect it to be any different than CMBS really, but I do know that the Typical settings for US FO's in CMBS are usually Crack or Elite.

In the training mission, are you calling them in using the drone for spotting? I suspect that's going to be worse than doing it by eye, for a couple of reasons - anything that lands outside of the drone's spotting disc is obviously going to be invisible, but I suspect (haven't tested) that it's a little worse in general anyway. The tutorial mission also has a lot of buildings hiding things you might want to hit - it's worth getting a eye level view from the FO and seeing what they can see, since any spotting round that lands behind a building is going to be useless to you.

You're quite right about the supply settings, but Typical settings are lower in CMSF 1 (and presumably 2). The Uncons will also not have the benefit of BMPs or Humvees full of ammo to stock up on, and may or may not get ammo dumps in CMSF 2 (will have to see). There's obviously nothing technologically advanced about an ammo dump, but it'll depend on whether they have the dismountable trucks etc. to do it.

The way I see it - the uncon advantages in Quick Battles will be as follows: - Cheap, highly motivated troops. - ATGM's with the Fighters, including some AT-14. - Cheap, fast vehicles with lots of firepower, including cheap anti-air. Should be decent drone killers at least. - IEDs and VBIEDs are devastating disruptive technology, and don't have easy counters - Civilian density provides some stealth cover for Combatant positions and Movement - Small arms that excel in short ranged combat, especially the RPG-7, which is superb in complex terrain Disadvantages include (but are not limited to!): - Poor training - Poor equipment (e.g., no body armour, night vision, secondary weapons) - Limited supplies - Limits of stealth will be hard to judge, so unreliable - No armoured vehicles - Terrible C2 (few to zero radios) - Artillery limited to mortars, no air support To me this all points to what's probably fairly obvious - that the ideal scenario for a competitive uncon player is a defence in depth over complex terrain (ideally a city, but the same thing would work in the right kind of rough terrain) - multiple independent positions that can work by themselves, and support each other with fires, particularly with ATGMs, but also mortars and MG teams. Independent positions make the most of the limited C2 options, since each position can be held by a "platooon" under voice/sight comms from their HQ unit - they probably won't be giving out spotting info to the other positions, but they will at least keep C2 within themselves.

The problem is support. You release something, and suddenly there will always be a ton of bugs you didn't catch in development. If you release over a weekend or during a holiday, and your team won't be available to react to them - you'll have a lot of people slammed in the face with major issues, and no communication or fixes for them for the first few days of release.

Setting a 1,000m arc is a reasonable plan. I rarely directly target them, since relying on the turn rolling over at the right point can be a problem. I think the real point with ATGM's is to pre-plan the kill zone, the primary position, and a secondary position with covered approach route - ATGM's broadcast their position all over the place, so breaking down and changing position after a single shot seems like the best SOP, especially if that shot is successful.

Like a lot of things, it's a behaviour with some tweaking - I've definitely seen them do it, but not always as fast as I'd like. Fundamentally though, if you order a unit to do something specific, I think it's reasonable that they should try to do that above anything else. An improvement might be a "hunt-like" toggle, which could apply to several orders - i.e., "cancel any existing orders when contact is made".

The battlefield is divided into 8m x 8m Action Spots. If you use the Target command, without selecting a visible enemy unit, it'll target the centre of the nearest action spot to where you click, which can be several metres away from where you expect. It'll fire on that general area for the full minute. If you target the unit (assuming you can see it), it'll fire on the unit, until it loses sight of them. The unit itself can override both of these if it wants or needs to - if it sees a more appropriate or threatening target.

It is. It's also interesting that the CMSF 2 Syrian TO&E is very different from CMSF 1 - in CMSF 1 the same squad would have nine men with two RPK's, not seven with a single PKM. Technically the driver and gunner of the BMP are the other two squad members (and the third "team"), but since they should stay mounted that doesn't really count.

Yeah, is just using the target line as a LOS tool - there's no actual firing from the command. Obviously the vehicle will have LOS to that square, so there may well be something there to fire at, but that'll be the vehicle's decision.

Yeah, Hull Down is best used like this: The above example is still a little risky (a little over-emphasised for effect) - if the target point can't find a hull down position along the move path, then the tank will move to the end of the Hull Down command regardless - so in this case this would include cresting the hill and over the other side, which could be dangerous. Probably sensible to try to stick the Hull Down waypoint on your side of the hill, so in the worst case it'll either not get LOS, or it'll be partially covered. (The "Target" command in this case will not cause the tank to fire.) Without the target command, the Tank tries to find a Hull Down to that point, and if it can't then it will just complete the move. With the above you can control where your vehicle ends up significantly more accurately. End result of the above: