domfluff

Wouldn't it be great if we could pay for Electronic Warfare, or Civilian Density settings in Quick Battles? In the same manner that you pay for fortifications. EW in particular is a huge part of Russian defence thinking, so having this capability tied to something concrete and player controlled seems appropriate to me.

You're right, and it would be nice to be able to enforce this, but that is the kind of thing you can do with "Mix" and some pre-planning with your opponent. Same thing with playing to an arbitrary points value really.

I'm a little confused with the Syrian radio situation (going by the CMSF 2 demo). Squads have "radio contact" C2 links when the HQ is in the BMP (using the BMP's radio), implying that the squads carry radios? But the HQ doesn't have radio contact with it's squads when outside of the BMP (and placed out of LOS/earshot). The HQ unit on foot doesn't have a C2 connection to the Company HQ, but still have one to an off-map Battalion HQ, and can call in off-map artillery, implying that they must have a radio? Likewise a subordinate unit has C2 connection to the Platoon HQ and the Company HQ only if all three units have line of sight connections - if the HQ is in a BMP for the radio contact, then the subordinate will be able to contact the Company HQ, but not the Platoon HQ, and if the Platoon HQ is outside the BMP then the reverse is true. Obviously the Syrian C2 is worse (no GPS, etc.), but I'm confused as to how this is actually working.

Also of note is that the Syrian army get dismounted AGL's in Breaking the Bank in the CMSF 2 demo, which I don't think was the case in CMSF 1. There's clearly been some major work in re-doing the Syrian army TO&E.

Just a quick point - with the above Soviet/Russian mech inf. squads - in CMBS, BMPs have six man squads, and BTRs/MT-LB's have seven, matching the diagram. The "Split squads" command separates these into the listed fireteams, with the RPG joining the manoeuvre element. Looking at the CMSF 2 demo, there seems to have been some significant changes to the Syrian TO&E. In CMSF 1, the Mechanised infantry squads are nine men strong, with two RPK LMG's, whereas the ones in Passage at Wilcox seem a lot more "Russian" - seven men, with a single PKM. The Motorised infantry squads in The Alamo seem to be nine men, with a single RPK. There's clearly a weapons platoon in the company with four PKM MMGs still. Each of those Motorised and Mechanised platoons has a single RPG-7 team, (in addition to the RPG-7V's inherent in the squads) but it's possible those are just attachments? In any case, the mech infantry HQ is a seven man squad with PKM, SVD and RPG-7.

First, a quote from: https://balagan.info/soviet-order-of-battle-and-doctrine-in-the-cold-war This quote is unsourced, and I'm really curious if it's accurate. Still, I've been trying to understand Russian infantry doctrine in CMBS. Reading The Russian Way of War: https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/Hot Spots/Documents/Russia/2017-07-The-Russian-Way-of-War-Grau-Bartles.pdf This cleared up a number of issues for me, especially in how the platoons are supposed to operate. The interesting part to me is the split into manoeuvre and fire teams (with a single LMG), making the squad more similar in practice to WW2 Commonwealth or German mainline army, rather than Panzergrenadiers or modern US rifle squad, with symmetrical fireteams that can cover each other. Notably, the BMP and the fireteam are supposed to be set up in cover and concealment, when they dismount at all. Much is made of the BMP's inability to spot when the dismounts are out - but I would suggest that this is because they're dismounting a little too soon - the BMP gains protection through firepower, and for that the squad stays mounted until necessary. In practice, and especially against Javelins, this might become necessary far sooner than intended, but that's the point where theory hits reality. In CMBS, BMP motor rifle platoons have two spare slots in each BMP, for a total of six seats - this can and should be used with the "Add Specialised Team" feature to add: AGL (2 men) AT units (2 or 3 men, depending on the type of ATGM chosen) RPO (2 men) Air Defence (1 man) Engineer (breach team) (4 men) (If the armour is not massed centrally, then the correct armoured support for a BMP Platoon is one tank, if any). This is crucial, I think. I've been playing some CMBS PBEM recently, and I've been really impressed with the power of these attached units. RPOs in particular have impressed me - they haven't been killing vast numbers of Americans by themselves, but they've been excellent at winning firefights in urban terrain. Every time I fired off one of those it felt like winning, since the return fire slackened off considerably and helped gain fire superiority. So, Syria. Syrian BMP units have nine man squads, with two LMG. This means that the platoon does not have the additional space for attached units, and the flexibility that provides. It also means that they don't have the two MMG's that the US platoons have, and form a huge part of their tactical flexibility. So you have a platoon that looks like it's made up of US-like symmetric squads, but doesn't have the flexibility that goes with that. I've heard it said that the Syrians do not use fireteams in reality, but I don't have a source for that either, and it doesn't make a ton of sense to me. The Syrian mech inf. company does have a weapons platoon with four MMGs, an HQ and a forward observer in two BMPs. the FO is clearly there to manage the Company mortars (mostly 120mm), and presumably in CMSF 2 we'll get an on-map option for these, with transport. Four MMGs would mean that you could parcel out two MMGs to the two up front platoons (assuming your basic two-up formation), so perhaps that's the point? The FO then could be in a position to support both in-contact platoons, or could directly support one of them. The HQ unit also has a radio, so you could have an FO and a worse version of an FO, perhaps. So, assuming that the initial quote is correct - "A captain at one of the war colleges wrote a paper identifying the Arab armies as using classic Western Style warfare" - I can see that being a sensible outcome from the squad and platoon organisation - you can operate the Syrians much like a US platoon, albeit one with mostly Soviet-era kit, and generally poor training.

According to Josey Wales' testing, fatigue doesn't seem to have any effect on accuracy, morale, etc. - the only effect is limiting the ability to move. That's surprising, but it's not nothing - being able to move Fast when you need to (e.g., incoming spotting rounds) can be really important - it's definitely better to be unemcumbered or unfatigued than the reverse.

(But I'd probably try reinstalling CMBN first)

Would suggest dropping a support ticket here: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

Oh, another thought - Assault isn't nessecarily a bad idea for clearing either (but it usually is). The circumstances where it's okay are when the building is isolated (you won't be receiving fire from surrounding buildings, on the way in or afterwards), and when the squad can reliably suppress whatever is in the building. The SOP in that (very specific) instance would be to start a Target command, then an assault command just outside of the building, with a second target order from this point. Using this combination, the stationary elements will be firing continuously into the building whilst the moving element leapfrogs. Assuming that your squad can reliably suppress the target, you're now safely into grenade/close assault range to finish things off. In general, I don't think that's a good idea, especially because you don't have full control over where your fireteams choose to leapfrog, and you really don't want to leave them in the middle of a street.

I don't think Hunt-ing into a building is the worst idea, but it's a bad idea for *clearing* - if there are (suppressed!) troops in there you want to get in and established as soon as possible, so Quick is probably the best option. Room clearing should still not be plan A though, although it's tempting. If you're intending on entering an unoccupied building that might have oversight on an occupied one, then Slow, Move or Hunt may well be the best option, if the firefight is not already in progress - stealth matters more here than speed, since if you can engage in a firefight from a static position behind cover, you'll be in the best position available to you.

For the 2 pdr on the Matilda and early Churchills, sure. Not so much with the later 6 pdr and 75mm Churchills and obviously not on the Shermans. 2 pdr shell on the left - it's tiny! Not sure how much HE you could cram into that.

I think from a scenario design point of view it's a reasonable assumption for this position - it's not really sporting to start a scenario with an in-progress ambush, and it's reasonable to assume that your setup is out of LOS and generally safe. Since each street has a Challenger covering it, I think that's a reasonable assumption, given that the briefing doesn't mention incoming RPG fire or whatever. Same issue with briefings in general - briefings can be wrong, and inaccurate briefings can be used as part of the game, but there's a difference between mis-reporting the type of guns in the Brecourt Manor assault, and "surprising" the player with a platoon of Tigers. It's the difference between a "Fair" and an "Unfair" puzzle, if you like.

The weakness in the approach Cpt. Miller illustrated (and, to be fair, he did caveat this significantly), is that the team is spending time hanging around in the open street, rather than in a covered position - either on that low wall, or if they make contact during the hunt or pause orders. That's fine if you're 100% sure your flanks are secure, of course, but that can go horribly wrong very quickly.. This is part of the reason why I think the actual room-clearing part is very secondary - if your focus is instead on avenues of movement to and from the target, on creating and restricting paths of mobility, the room clearing can almost take care of itself. "Avoid rooftops" is also an interesting point, especially in CMSF with all of the flat roofs. Rooftops do give you the best visibility possible in MOUT, especially for crew-served weapons, and therefore controlling this space is important. That doesn't mean that you have to join the enemy on the rooftops - controlling this by fires (especially mortars) can be equally worthwhile.

I don't believe vehicles can share ammo in any of the games (which makes a lot of sense). All missiles, including TOW, can and will be fired at buildings, etc. You're reliant on the Tac AI to make that decision to an extent, so it can be difficult to force it.

Enemies hiding behind a building is one of the many reasons why you need to do this kind of thing: Rather than this: If at all possible. If you can isolate the building with fires, you prevent reinforcements arriving or occupants fleeing, and you maintain control over the engagement, tempo and otherwise. It's worth also pointing out that the first diagram shows two platoons of troops, versus the three squads of the below. Obviously in practice you have play the hand you're dealt, but understanding what you'd like to achieve is the first step.

The limitations of the various Blue Forces are one of the interesting things about them. The Dutch, for example, have some great it, but are very infantry-light. The rate of fire of the 30mm Rarden cannons on the Warriors are more than capable of suppressing targets in buildings, regardless of HE, and the warriors are full of 51mm mortar rounds and AT-4's, all of which can help. In reality, you have to go with what you've got. This mission definitely gave me more appreciate for the Stryker MOUT units - MGS Strykers make a lot of sense in this context, and having a squad that splits into three teams (one of which has demo charges) is extremely useful in this environment. Now, you can make a broader point here, which is that CM scenario design tends towards the difficult. That's definitely a valid complaint, since you're often faced with worst-possible scenarios and some extremely well dug in or sited enemy positions. Human opponents usually have better "AI", but Quick Battles usually won't leave you with a massive problem to solve (like a lack of AT weapons, or insufficient infantry).

From memory, this is a night mission? The enemy will shoot back if they can, but your guys will be able to see them long before they can see you.

Welcome to Syria! - MOUT is really hard, a slow and costly grind, street by street. - MOUT is also the bread and butter of CMSF, and probably the main thing that differentiates it from the other titles. First, an excellent link: https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/report/call/call_01-9_karagosian.htm What I find really interesting about the above is that it not only gives advice on how to do it, it also highlights how even the official sources have fallen into the same kind of traps that we do as players - focusing on the target building, rather than isolating it with fields of fire and concentrating on the avenues of approach. Yup. This is why isolating and overwatching plausible buildings are important. Take this as a simple example (moving up the left street at the start of Breaking the Bank) Platoon wants to turn this corner. This street is overwatched by a challenger from the start of the scenario, so it's reasonable to assume that all of these visible windows are free from enemy. Team's eye view. Notably, they cannot see the large building to the right: Peeking around the corner with the camera: Both large buildings here seem like plausible locations for enemy. You can inch around the corner and see each window in turn coming into view - running around this corner with anything is a Bad Idea (Street Fighting is not about fighting in streets, as per the article). The team could move into the building they're currently lined up against, but that creates some more problems: This does allow covered LOS to the two threatening buildings, but also exposes the team to a third (large wall and taxi, above). This building has the further downside that there is no way for supporting fires to reach this one from this situation - anything firing from there will go pretty much unanswered. So this is an awful situation, and one which is fully in Red's favour. How can we improve, using only the above? Well, across the street from the team there is a tall building with a decent area for overwatching the two key buildings. This is the view from there: The plan then would be to get some firepower set up in this building, and then recon-by-fire onto the suspect buildings from a degree of relative safety, granting your teams more freedom to manouevre. This is the kind of inch-by-inch puzzle that MOUT is all about, and CMSF does really well. Splitting squads minimises risk. The assault command can be useful to clear buildings, but it also commits the entire squad to the clearing, if you split a squad and run into the worst possible situation, you'll "only" lose a fireteam, and not the whole squad. As per the above article, the actual *clearing* is not the important factor, but it's easy to get hung up on. Armour is a mixed bag in MOUT, in any period. It's really effective at bringing devastating firepower quickly and ending firefights, but it's also extremely vulnerable to infantry ambushes. You definitely do not want to drive your armour up to the middle of the street, hoping the RPGs will miss, but as a way to finish a firefight they can be very successful. The key, as with a lot of combat mission, is to control the tempo as much as possible, and to engage with the minimum amount of force that you can get away with, so that you can maintain options and reserves.

Random +1 and -1 to heights scattered around can do a lot of work, in terms of micro terrain. For the retreat idea, the typical approach is to use the Exit conditions, with some bonus added points. Simple example. Platoon vs platoon, defender needs to run a fighting withdrawal. Attacker earns 200vp for killing this platoon. Attacker earns 0vp if they escape intact. Defender earns 100vp baseline. If the attacker kills the enemy platoon, they score 100vp more than their opponent (200 vs 100). If the attacker fails to damage that platoon before it escapes, the Defender earns 100vp (100 vs 0) You then need to incentivise the defender to hang around - perhaps in this simple example you reduce the bonus vp to 50, and give them 50vp for doing 50% casualties on the attacker? To further develop this, and create options other than "fighting withdrawal", you might want to either give them more points for attacker destruction, or occupy objectives to defend - perhaps they can earn 100vp with 50% cas and bonus, and withdraw, but an occupy objective to defend also gives them 100vp, so a successful on-map defence will be 200 vs 100. There's lots of levers to pull here, and it's tough to get it right.

The scenario that MikeyD is almost certainly talking about is Al Huqf Engagement. That's currently a "symmetric" Syrian vs US platoon, with a single Bradley and a BMP 2. The AI is a single Assault order onto the objective, so they just run in without much thought. A lot of the very earliest CMSF scenarios were similarly crude. They didn't have much simulationist weight, and certainly didn't play to the strengths of the AI, instead exposing the very real weaknesses. So... re-doing the AI in this scenario, even if the forces and map remained unchanged, would absolutely make it a new scenario. There will be a ton of similarly "new" content when CMSF 2 hits. Clearest example in the demo is the Marine scenario. This is mission two od the marine campaign, and involves an opposed amphibious landing. There are two major differences with this scenario that completely change the mission - since CMSF 1 has no water, the new scenario extends the map's depth and puts the "amphibious" into the mission. This changes the nature of the tactics involved, since the AAV's don't just apparate onto the beach now. The other major differece are the hidden trenches - since trenches used to be visible, their location would dictate your approach to a map, and you could easily plot pre-battle bombardments to take out the scariest potential atgm positions. Removing this is a major buff to the Red side, and a significant deepening of the game's tactical depth - even if you tried to "play fair" and ignore trench works, it was really hard to not have them affect your schemes.

There is another factor - better C2 links will speed up indirect response times, with some rounding. This is one of the many reasons why British Universal Carriers can be really useful - not only do the right ones carry more medium mortar ammunition, they also have a radio which can remove a minute or so from call-in times. Obviously direct lay is still significantly faster. Definitely a risk/reward though, since you really don't want to come under fire. As before, indirect fire is not something I'd do as a response to incoming fire, but only as part of a planned assault. Waiting five minutes is fine when you have control of when the attack begins. Keeping the 60mm mortar with the platoon gives you the option of doing both direct and indirect, which is the important bit - if you thrust them onto the line or keep them well behind the lines then you lose the other option.

One issue I had recently with on-map 120mm mortars in CMBS - they have a fairly hefty minimum range! Definitely worth keeping in mind, depending on terrain.

(It's a BTR, but shrug) In CMBS, both 120mm mortars and 155m artillery have access to "Precision" missions, since both have a limited amount of guided munitions (XM395 mortar rounds, M982 Excaliber). The Excaliber rounds were (just!) available in the 2007 timeframe of CMSF, but the mortar rounds were not deployed until 2012. In the tutorial mission, you do not get the option for a Precision mission, just a Point mission, which is going to be as inaccurate as any mortar attack.

True, which is why the above example is more for setting up a deliberate, planned attack, rather than as a way to win a firefight, and react to the enemy. Light mortars are pretty good (and the British and Italian mortars in particular are *excellent*) at this more reactive role, in a direct fire capacity. British light mortars, by doctrine and by use, are more about smoke than HE though - their ammunition load is very low (there are universal carriers that carry more two inch mortar rounds), so they'll only really be useful for a single target in a battle, usually. The abiltiy to deploy smoke (offensively or defensively) is very powerful though. Naturally you *can't* fire the two inch mortars in an indirect role, so that isn't really a question.