domfluff

So... when is CMSF 3 coming out?

On brief inspection, I think I actually found frame rates better, on a direct comparison (the British mission). Obviously there are a ton of factors involved, so that doesn't mean you're incorrect.

I'd be up for that - have been trying to get back into doing CM multiplayer. Will drop you an email.

If they're releasing "all standalone scenarios", then you'd assume that Quick Battle content would be complete as well.

Precision rounds! Drones! Water! (etc.) *Really* enjoying the Marine beach landing scenario - it makes a lot more sense now.

If my takeaway came in an empty box I'd be really upset.

I was thinking about adapting some of this kind of thing (going back to Von Moltke's originals) Some CM scenario's are a bit "puzzle like" in this manner - I wonder whether this kind of thing would be better with multiple plans, or actually being "solvable". For example, any kind of flanking move to the right could run into an enemy team (or worse) hidden from view - if so, should they always be there? sometimes? If one were developing CM TDG's, I wonder what the best approach would be.

There are suggested solutions with maps to the top right (A, B and C). "Solutions", really, since there's no one right answer, but the process is the thing. Solution A http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tds97_1a.html Solution B http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tds97_1b.html Solution C http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tds97_1c.html For what it's worth, I don't like the look of Solution B. Solution A was the same as what I sketched out, and Solution C is the most similar to yours, since it's similarly defensive (but possibly from a stronger position?) It didn't actually occur to me to not attack(!) here - I'd be more than happy to probe cautiously and cancel the movement on contact, but I've come to realise that I have a strong bias towards manoeuvre in general, which doesn't mean it's always the best fit for the job. Incidentally, other games on this page are include the same scenario from the opposite perspective: http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tdg97_3.html And the same scenario from the perspective of the platoon commander: http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tdg97_5.html

This one in particular, since it's quick and simple, yet directly relevant to Combat Mission. http://kepler.pratt.duke.edu/NROTC/gazetteOLD/tdg97_1.html Came across this, and thought this was pretty interesting - in particular how all three of the solutions differed - my solution was identical to A (differing on where I placed the MG - my placement was probably worse), but it was interesting to see the alternative points of view. Some of the other TDG's on this page include the idea of a "Premortem" - "Assume that you can see into the future and can see that your plan was a complete failure. Try to anticipate what would likely have gone wrong and why." That seems like a useful tool in general - anticipating failure, so you can work to counteract it.

It's interesting to consider that 46m "voice C2" range. If you had the three squads of a platoon in "broad wedge" ("V") formation, with the HQ and any support assets floating in the centre, and each squad six action spots away,from it, that'll mean the platoon spans just under 100m of the battlefield, or the average attack frontage listed above. Voice range will allow your platoon to react fastest to spotted contacts, and support each other with fire. In practice, this will be dependant on terrain more than anything - it's no good having a squad bimbling around in the open, just to get the C2 bonuses.

Distance is really about communication, and thus depends on terrain. You can see the C2 connection in the UI - LOS, spoken, far, etc. Generally speaking, you want all of a unit to be able to see each other, or at least all of them being able to see their HQ - otherwise when (for example) your forward scouts come under fire, you won't have the ability to respond, and they'll just get isolated. The closer they are (the better the C2 link), the faster they'll share spotting information, and the better they'll react to threats. This means that distance is terrain dependant - in close woods they may have to be very close indeed, whereas open terrain allows them to spread out a little. The best guide on how C2 works in Combat Mission: In terms of how much space a unit can be reasonably expected to command, that comes down to "frontage" That gives you a very rough idea of the amount of space a given unit was expected to be responsible for - it's not necessarily how far apart they're spaced, since that's more terrain dependant than anything.

There are more than one type of precision round in CMBS - the US 155mm and 120mm mortar "Precision" rounds are pretty different in practice, with the 155mm precision being a lot more... precise. The Russian and Ukraine precision rounds need laser designation (it's the reason why the US liason team has laser designators, for example), but the US use GPS, so don't need to laze a target. I suspect they won't help you with US artillery either. Since mounted mortar fire has (apparently!) a much slower rate of fire, then I think that's reason enough to differentiate them - obviously rate of fire is not always what you want with artillery of any size, but sometimes it definitely is. Obviously you're giving up mobility and protection when you dismount, so that's your trade-off. Call-in time seems to be the same in any case.

No, you can't set up a touch objective for the spy (i.e., get this specific unit here, +100 VP). What you *can* do, set the spy as the only destroy objective for opfor, and give that -100 VP. Then, set an exit condition on the map. If there's an exit zone on the map, then any destroy objective units will be worth their assigned points, as if they were destroyed, if they do not exit the map by the end of game time. So... what you end up with is something which has almost exactly the same end effect as "this unit to here is worth 100VP", but it's done backwards.

Sure, but if the idea was: Then you can do precisely the opposite of that, which achieves the same end (i.e., you can't give points for the spy touching an objective, but you can give points to the enemy if specifically the spy doesn't hit that objective. Only once, mind you, but it's a start.

Right, did some testing: (Tested using CMFB, the German halftrack mortar carrier. 0 Leadership, Regular troops - experience matters a huge amount here, Veteran mortars can lay down many more rounds than Regular.) Unmounted mortars fire at nearly twice the rate! It's clearly worth unmounting them, but there will be situations where it's useful to have the mobile firepower. That's pretty clear then... Also some testing of CMBS drones (Raven Drone, Regular JTAC) and aerial observation - there was a lot of variability here, but I think things were mostly what you'd expect - smaller arcs usually spotted faster, and "point" targets are actually 50 radius area spots. Moving armour was spotted before stationary armour, and actual-trees hid them better than wood tiles (but both hid them better than open ground), but in most tests armour was spotted within one minute, so it doesn't make much practical difference, given that WeGo is a thing. Infantry were a lot more difficult to spot - stationary infantry in the open were usually spotted around the 5-15 minute mark, stationary infantry in wood tiles or actual-woods were regularly not spotted before the timer expired (30 minutes).

Small unit actions are often far more parsable than larger ones - Company and Battalion level fights often (should) break down into Platoon actions in any case, so just sticking to a platoon lets you focus on the details, which also gives more to discuss. Tactical problems, etc. For what it's worth - I do agree with Bil, the main concern is whether you're sufficiently mutually supporting, and that does seem doubtful at this point - you don't really want one of your squads to run into two or three of theirs, isolated. Now, on the other hand, if the Germans were all-in on a frontal attack, then the weak centre and strong flanks could let you pull off a nice double envelopment, so we'll see.

Oh, there are ton of things in that video which are extremely suspect from a tactical point of view - you can actually see an RPG round whizz past the AAV-7 as it crests the hill, which would have shortened the video considerably (I'd like to think I've improved at CM significantly since then, but perhaps not). It was mostly an experiment in using FoF as a source for CM scenarios - to compare, this is the same scenario on a tabletop (with a very different interpretation of scale): There was actually a triggerman on the right hand hill, and one of the buildings has an IED inside - the triggerman can sometimes blow up the building.

"Shouldn't happen" is a bold statement there (You're quite correct though - if you're worried about mortars being seen, you probably have other issues). Air observation is an interesting thought though - I don't think there's been a large amount of testing of this. With both drones and attack aircraft (in all periods), it does seem like vehicles are spotted more easily than infantry, especially whilst moving. It also seems like wooded cover helps. With the limited information about LOS that we have, I'd guess that this was based on three major factors - unit height (we know there are five levels - prone infantry. walking infantry, and three kinds of vehicles), movement and terrain tile type. On-foot mortars would definitely allow for both using more restrictive and concealing terrain, as well as being spotted as infantry. It's obviously not clear if aerial LOS is drawn from an imaginary aircraft point, or whether this is essentially just top-down and abstracted. On a similar level, I'd like to know if smaller Observe missions by drones spot things faster in that area. Hmm.. might knock up some testing later.

(You could imagine a loss of rate of fire due to limited space, or a loss of accuracy due to the need to stabilise and level the thing after every move, but I have no idea if those are modelled at all, or even all that reasonable).

Matching a mortar with a mechanised platform makes a ton of sense in general - strategically, but also tactically, in the form of mobility, better radio comms, and ammunition stowage (as well as limited protection), all of which can apply to Combat Mission. In CMFB and CMBS (and probably CMSF 2) there are mortar carrying halftracks and other vehicles, which can fire without dismounting (the same sdkfz 251/2 appear in the earlier titles, but without the same functionality). Other than reducing visibility (or getting away from the big metal explodey thing, when AT fire is possible), is there any good reason to dismount these mortars?

Oh, quite so, I just don't think it's wise to paint the whole thing as a grind, when there are going to be interesting things to play around with (albeit bleak, in all directions).

Strategically, sure. Tactically, you can almost always find gameable scenarios. (Take the fight over the Gestapo headquarters, Soviet assault, followed by a successful Waffen-SS counterattack - anything that with a situation that fluid can't really be described as "nothing more than a massacre".)

(Other units will also be able to exit, but won't count for anything)

With CMSF 2, you should be able to set up an Exit zone, and make the Spy the only Destroy target for the opposition - then if the Spy is killed or doesn't exit the map, opfor will score the VP.

Typical definitely includes Experience levels - check out CMBS US FO's versus, say, CMFI Italians.