domfluff

I know there have already been a few of these released, but thought I would show a preview of what I have been toying with...
These are based on the US Army's FM 101-5.1 .... with a little license taken to make them clear at any distance.
This image is an overview of the first AAR map I was playing with @Baneman.. yellow are FOW icons of course.  

This set includes special colors for each nation... 
...in this image I have selected a Bradley Platoon, which if you remember was playing red in this action.  The icons remain the color I chose for the US side (Infantry Blue) while selected.. they will be red when not selected.  

FOW icons showing a selection of different unit types... very easy t tell them apart.  All nations use the same FOW icon set... so no clues as to nationality until you fully ID a unit.

The following image illustrates Syrian infantry.. also note the Blue infantry.. that is one of Baneman's irregulars and was on Blue.. Ihave included an inset of that icon selected, showing that when playing blue, Syrian units will highlight green.

BMP-3 (with one infantry unit selected) showing the darker red Syrian highlight:

On the blue side...highlight insets show a British vehicle (khaki) and a German IFV (gray)...

And finally, the overview I started this post off with, but with one US Platoon highlighted...

Coming soon.. probably this weekend.  Just need to run them through some thorough tests.
Bil

Would want more information, but allow me to blunder into an uninformed opinion. 

Those objectives look too widely spaced to contest with one platoon, and there's also no easy way to deny the enemy manoeuvre and therefore gain an advantage in mobility), since the map appears symmetrically split with that ridge line.

Therefore my basic scheme would be to move the platoon to take the more valuable objective (** usually indicate VP), expecting a close range firefight on that objective.

That will leave a few possible scenarios:

- Your opponent will do the same, and you'll slug it out at close range (you should have an advantage here)
- Your opponent will do the opposite, and you'll defend the more valuable objective.
- Your opponent will spread out, and you'll defeat them in detail.

You don't have the mobility or fires to do much that's more complex than that - advancing through the (possibly) covered approach on your right and taking that town seems as good a plan as any.

How close they managed to get before being seen (the right-most squad is Move-ing one square forward)

Doing some more stealth testing of different Civilian levels, and the distance that combatants are spotted at. Assumption was that this would be some kind of linear relationship - perhaps something like 1 square for Very Heavy, 2 squares for Heavy, etc.



This was the distance on "Very Heavy", which matches the previous tests.

... this was *also* the distance on every other  test I ran, including civilians set to "None" (the screenshot is actually from the "None" tests)

Now, the interesting bit was that I noticed this unit had been generated with Crack level experience. I tried a Conscript (set everything back to Typical) on the same "None" setting and they got spotted straight away.

The same Conscript infantry on Very Heavy civilian density made it to the below:



This does mean this stealth is more complex than the linear relationship I expected. Needs more testing, obviously, but it's a start.

Other things found - Deploying an MG is a "giveaway" action - this is yet another reason why RPG's are really useful to have around.

Some maps from the above sources, describing the Active, Security and Support roles in different contexts:


This is more than doable with the mechanics in CMSF - obviously the crowd/riot would have to be abstracted (flavour object? burning cars?), but it would work.

As a scenario it wouldn't be all that interesting, obviously, but it's nice to know.



More of a formal Syrian army hunter-killer ambush, but one that would work just as well with irregular forces. Given the obstacles, this wouldn't work in CMSF, but should work fine in CMSF  (ignoring the basements).



"Exit" objectives will help this kind of thing with CMSF 2


The above is probably what a typical irregular scenario should look like - attack a target, and get out before the reaction force shows up. Again with the "exit" conditions making this kind of thing possible now.


One thing that is notable is how small these examples are - most insurgent-only scenarios should probably be really small - Blufor getting a squad or maybe a platoon at most. That's pushing the lower limit on scale for CM, but I think it's workable.

The importance of Infowar elements in the above makes me wonder if there's something clever you can do with Spotting objectives.

Have been thinking a lot about Opfor in general (sucker for an underdog), and how to approach this with CMSF 2, particularly from a PBEM standpoint, and trying to be somewhat competitive.

Doing some experimenting with CMSF 1:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. VBIED seem to have some degree of stealth, but nothing like as much as that. Usually that doesn't matter, since they cover a huge amount of ground pretty quickly.

They are not spotted directly, but the soldiers will still call out "SPOTTED AN ENEMY UNIT", etc. - so there's some contextual clues. Occasionally they might pop up with contact icons, but still nothing they'll directly fire at. Originally I thought this was a problem, but on further thought I think this might actually be okay - the manuals talk about spotting unusual behaviour in civilians, dogs etc., so this could be put down to that kind of observation. I was also originally of the opinion that this "stealth device" approach to modelling insurgents wasn't terribly great, but it does seem to match up to the tactical considerations quite well - hiding amongst civilians to get to point-blank range, etc.

Combatants do not have the firepower to go into a straight fight with any Blufor squad, at least with small arms, and they're mostly equipped with small arms alone. This means that I suspect the correct approach is to force them into something other that a straight fight.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then give them a really good reason to leave the building - ideally a VBIED, but perhaps an ATGM, mortar fire, RPG volley, whatever.  The Combatants can then open up whist he US squad is fleeing the building, giving them the advantage that they need. Any technicals are ideal here as flankers - probably not engaging directly, but cutting off retreat routes.


The TC 7-100 series are the  recent OpFor guides for the US. 2 and 3 are of particular use:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/TC_7-100.2_-_Opposing_Force_Tactics_(December_2011).pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/TC_7-100.3_-_Irregular_Opposing_Forces_(January_2014).pdf

The interesting things here are how generic these are (the same basic concepts work for Syrian Mechanised infantry battalion assaults, or a fighter group ambushing a few HMMWV's). This generally splits a plan into three sections:

Active Element - This is the element that will make the assault/carry out the ambush/manoeuvre onto the target.
Security Element - Early warning for the approach of reinforcements, possibly delaying or preventing this. Typically this might just be an RPG team, but could include spies, IED's, mines, ATGMs, etc.
Support Element - C2, Direct fires, Indirect fires and mobility.

Direct fires will be MG's, RPGs and maybe an ATGM. Mobility is obviously civilian transport.

The "C2" part of that is worth some thought. Irregular forces don't get much in terms of equipment, and I can't remember if there's much in the way of radios in CMSF. The Spy in Passage at Wilcox (CMSF 2 Demo) definitely has a radio, so there's that. I do wonder if it's worth using teams in taxis as messengers, sharing the spy spotting information horizontally? In any case, it's going to be important to pay attention to force (cell?) structure here, and a reasonable percentage of your force allocation should probably go on spies (or at least dedicated to spotting Combatants), since you'll need all the help you can get.


This does leave the Fighters in a slightly odd position. Without the stealth of the Combatants, they're mostly useful for having better equipment (including ATGMs), usually a little better training, and higher motivation. Whilst that means that they're a good choice for the actual attack, they don't have the same ability to get close without some thought - I wonder if they're best used from concealment as the assault element, after the support element suppresses the target? That would leave Combatants in the Security and Support roles mostly, I suppose.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate RPG teams (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then fix them in place -  unleashing a volley of RPGs and MG fire from multiple directions.  The Fighters can then debus from civilian transport and storm the building directly.

One idea I did read in the above manuals which I think could work well in CMSF is using taxis to form an impromptu roadblock - using them to block in either end of a street so that exits are impeded. The taxis will be destroyed, of course, but if it keeps the enemy in the kill zone longer, so much the better.
 

Yup, under "menus" there's a button for "conditions" - that'll give you wind direction, weather, ground state, electronic warfare, whatever is appropriate.

In general, my scouts in a german formation tend to be whole teams - if you split off a scout team, you end up with an unsplittable six man squad with one or two MG's, which severely limits your options - and your number one priority is maintaining as much freedom of movement (and available options) as possible. There are exceptions, but they're generally in a final push to contact - if I'm trying to get eyes-on to a known enemy, and want to maintain as stealthy an approach as possible, then I'll split off a German scout team.

Whether to rush is a common problem with meeting engagements, and is an issue with wargaming those scenarios in general - ME tend to be non-historical, and the "rush to the centre" mentality is one that's seen far more commonly in gaming than it ever was in reality. It's just one of those things. If your opponent has charged into the centre, you might have a bad time - this is partly an issue with the time limit, and partly with the objectives.

I'm (again, with full expectation of being badly wrong) expecting him to have taken the other objective by now, and for this to be mostly a stand-off over open ground. That means that the decisive point will be whose armoured car gets destroyed first - which is a fight you should be equipped to win. If so, then you should be able to mop up fairly safely from outside PIAT range and win a minor victory.

Would want more information, but allow me to blunder into an uninformed opinion. 

Those objectives look too widely spaced to contest with one platoon, and there's also no easy way to deny the enemy manoeuvre and therefore gain an advantage in mobility), since the map appears symmetrically split with that ridge line.

Therefore my basic scheme would be to move the platoon to take the more valuable objective (** usually indicate VP), expecting a close range firefight on that objective.

That will leave a few possible scenarios:

- Your opponent will do the same, and you'll slug it out at close range (you should have an advantage here)
- Your opponent will do the opposite, and you'll defend the more valuable objective.
- Your opponent will spread out, and you'll defeat them in detail.

You don't have the mobility or fires to do much that's more complex than that - advancing through the (possibly) covered approach on your right and taking that town seems as good a plan as any.

Well, you don't always get to say nah, I won't fight here. Let's say your heavy mech is doing 'haul ass and bypass' to Damascus. But then a Syrian rifle company mixed with irregulars appears out of this dense farmland and shoots up a fuel convoy? You get put in command of a scratch force and get told to "go clear those bastards out asap". Which mostly means 'find them and then call in air/helo strikes'. You have insufficient forces to cordon off the area. So there's no alternative to going into the bush. The general wants the MSR secured, like yesterday! No more goddam burning fuel trucks on al Jazeera.... 
(I know you know this stuff btw,  just shootin' the breeze. Don't want to sound preachy) 

I think the basic building blocks haven't changed since SF1:
1. put a huge vp penalty on BLUEFOR losses to drive realistically conservative behaviours (and increase RED degrees of freedom).
... Of course this also means you can't whack BLUE right away with an unavoidable hi-cas ambush (unless you provide a vp cushion that provides for it). I generally just assume that on turn 1 the Big Bump has already happened, humvees are burning, etc.
2. Suitably constricted/compartmented terrain where BLUE can't instantly converge/call in their overwhelming fire superiority (*yawn*). Hard cover remains  undermodeled, so in the absence of robust strongpoints RED has got to be able to break contact and rally.

Hidden information is always difficult in a wargame - even with "double blind" information like CM, you're still very aware that you're playing a scenario, and have an idea what to expect (you'll never guess what happened in the CMSF scenario "ATGM Ambush"...)

Still, a combination of a city with a lot of Preserve objectives, objectives that have to be reached, a limited mission time and the Civilian density mechanics, you should be able to cobble something together.

e.g., if the intention was to be an urban ambush scenario, then giving the Red player freedom of the map and fortifications (especially wire), and giving the blue forces preserve and touch objectives and a tight time limit (so that they really have to use vehicles to get to them all), you should end up with a reasonable chance at setting up an ambush. To make it more interesting, it might not be clear what kind of route is possible to travel on.

For an "assault"-type scenario, having the blue forces split up over more than one setup zone, and giving Red an Exit zone should do the trick nicely - you'd get the basic "kill A and get out before B gets here" structure.

Since the irregulars have so many disadvantages, it's tough to see how they'd cope in most meeting engagements, even in urban terrain. Offensive and defensive scenarios seem a lot more plausible in general. I'm also not sure about how well these will work in Quick Battles generally - none of the Red forces really work in "fair" fights to begin with, points-based force selection doesn't make it easy to create unfair situations, and the further down the chain you go, the worse it gets.

Have been thinking a lot about Opfor in general (sucker for an underdog), and how to approach this with CMSF 2, particularly from a PBEM standpoint, and trying to be somewhat competitive.

Doing some experimenting with CMSF 1:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. VBIED seem to have some degree of stealth, but nothing like as much as that. Usually that doesn't matter, since they cover a huge amount of ground pretty quickly.

They are not spotted directly, but the soldiers will still call out "SPOTTED AN ENEMY UNIT", etc. - so there's some contextual clues. Occasionally they might pop up with contact icons, but still nothing they'll directly fire at. Originally I thought this was a problem, but on further thought I think this might actually be okay - the manuals talk about spotting unusual behaviour in civilians, dogs etc., so this could be put down to that kind of observation. I was also originally of the opinion that this "stealth device" approach to modelling insurgents wasn't terribly great, but it does seem to match up to the tactical considerations quite well - hiding amongst civilians to get to point-blank range, etc.

Combatants do not have the firepower to go into a straight fight with any Blufor squad, at least with small arms, and they're mostly equipped with small arms alone. This means that I suspect the correct approach is to force them into something other that a straight fight.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then give them a really good reason to leave the building - ideally a VBIED, but perhaps an ATGM, mortar fire, RPG volley, whatever.  The Combatants can then open up whist he US squad is fleeing the building, giving them the advantage that they need. Any technicals are ideal here as flankers - probably not engaging directly, but cutting off retreat routes.


The TC 7-100 series are the  recent OpFor guides for the US. 2 and 3 are of particular use:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/TC_7-100.2_-_Opposing_Force_Tactics_(December_2011).pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/TC_7-100.3_-_Irregular_Opposing_Forces_(January_2014).pdf

The interesting things here are how generic these are (the same basic concepts work for Syrian Mechanised infantry battalion assaults, or a fighter group ambushing a few HMMWV's). This generally splits a plan into three sections:

Active Element - This is the element that will make the assault/carry out the ambush/manoeuvre onto the target.
Security Element - Early warning for the approach of reinforcements, possibly delaying or preventing this. Typically this might just be an RPG team, but could include spies, IED's, mines, ATGMs, etc.
Support Element - C2, Direct fires, Indirect fires and mobility.

Direct fires will be MG's, RPGs and maybe an ATGM. Mobility is obviously civilian transport.

The "C2" part of that is worth some thought. Irregular forces don't get much in terms of equipment, and I can't remember if there's much in the way of radios in CMSF. The Spy in Passage at Wilcox (CMSF 2 Demo) definitely has a radio, so there's that. I do wonder if it's worth using teams in taxis as messengers, sharing the spy spotting information horizontally? In any case, it's going to be important to pay attention to force (cell?) structure here, and a reasonable percentage of your force allocation should probably go on spies (or at least dedicated to spotting Combatants), since you'll need all the help you can get.


This does leave the Fighters in a slightly odd position. Without the stealth of the Combatants, they're mostly useful for having better equipment (including ATGMs), usually a little better training, and higher motivation. Whilst that means that they're a good choice for the actual attack, they don't have the same ability to get close without some thought - I wonder if they're best used from concealment as the assault element, after the support element suppresses the target? That would leave Combatants in the Security and Support roles mostly, I suppose.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate RPG teams (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then fix them in place -  unleashing a volley of RPGs and MG fire from multiple directions.  The Fighters can then debus from civilian transport and storm the building directly.

One idea I did read in the above manuals which I think could work well in CMSF is using taxis to form an impromptu roadblock - using them to block in either end of a street so that exits are impeded. The taxis will be destroyed, of course, but if it keeps the enemy in the kill zone longer, so much the better.
 

Some maps from the above sources, describing the Active, Security and Support roles in different contexts:


This is more than doable with the mechanics in CMSF - obviously the crowd/riot would have to be abstracted (flavour object? burning cars?), but it would work.

As a scenario it wouldn't be all that interesting, obviously, but it's nice to know.



More of a formal Syrian army hunter-killer ambush, but one that would work just as well with irregular forces. Given the obstacles, this wouldn't work in CMSF, but should work fine in CMSF  (ignoring the basements).



"Exit" objectives will help this kind of thing with CMSF 2


The above is probably what a typical irregular scenario should look like - attack a target, and get out before the reaction force shows up. Again with the "exit" conditions making this kind of thing possible now.


One thing that is notable is how small these examples are - most insurgent-only scenarios should probably be really small - Blufor getting a squad or maybe a platoon at most. That's pushing the lower limit on scale for CM, but I think it's workable.

The importance of Infowar elements in the above makes me wonder if there's something clever you can do with Spotting objectives.

You are doing a fine job...  it's nice to see you doing some effective scouting.  How many scout teams do you have out front?  
Bil

Have been thinking a lot about Opfor in general (sucker for an underdog), and how to approach this with CMSF 2, particularly from a PBEM standpoint, and trying to be somewhat competitive.

Doing some experimenting with CMSF 1:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. VBIED seem to have some degree of stealth, but nothing like as much as that. Usually that doesn't matter, since they cover a huge amount of ground pretty quickly.

They are not spotted directly, but the soldiers will still call out "SPOTTED AN ENEMY UNIT", etc. - so there's some contextual clues. Occasionally they might pop up with contact icons, but still nothing they'll directly fire at. Originally I thought this was a problem, but on further thought I think this might actually be okay - the manuals talk about spotting unusual behaviour in civilians, dogs etc., so this could be put down to that kind of observation. I was also originally of the opinion that this "stealth device" approach to modelling insurgents wasn't terribly great, but it does seem to match up to the tactical considerations quite well - hiding amongst civilians to get to point-blank range, etc.

Combatants do not have the firepower to go into a straight fight with any Blufor squad, at least with small arms, and they're mostly equipped with small arms alone. This means that I suspect the correct approach is to force them into something other that a straight fight.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then give them a really good reason to leave the building - ideally a VBIED, but perhaps an ATGM, mortar fire, RPG volley, whatever.  The Combatants can then open up whist he US squad is fleeing the building, giving them the advantage that they need. Any technicals are ideal here as flankers - probably not engaging directly, but cutting off retreat routes.


The TC 7-100 series are the  recent OpFor guides for the US. 2 and 3 are of particular use:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/TC_7-100.2_-_Opposing_Force_Tactics_(December_2011).pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/TC_7-100.3_-_Irregular_Opposing_Forces_(January_2014).pdf

The interesting things here are how generic these are (the same basic concepts work for Syrian Mechanised infantry battalion assaults, or a fighter group ambushing a few HMMWV's). This generally splits a plan into three sections:

Active Element - This is the element that will make the assault/carry out the ambush/manoeuvre onto the target.
Security Element - Early warning for the approach of reinforcements, possibly delaying or preventing this. Typically this might just be an RPG team, but could include spies, IED's, mines, ATGMs, etc.
Support Element - C2, Direct fires, Indirect fires and mobility.

Direct fires will be MG's, RPGs and maybe an ATGM. Mobility is obviously civilian transport.

The "C2" part of that is worth some thought. Irregular forces don't get much in terms of equipment, and I can't remember if there's much in the way of radios in CMSF. The Spy in Passage at Wilcox (CMSF 2 Demo) definitely has a radio, so there's that. I do wonder if it's worth using teams in taxis as messengers, sharing the spy spotting information horizontally? In any case, it's going to be important to pay attention to force (cell?) structure here, and a reasonable percentage of your force allocation should probably go on spies (or at least dedicated to spotting Combatants), since you'll need all the help you can get.


This does leave the Fighters in a slightly odd position. Without the stealth of the Combatants, they're mostly useful for having better equipment (including ATGMs), usually a little better training, and higher motivation. Whilst that means that they're a good choice for the actual attack, they don't have the same ability to get close without some thought - I wonder if they're best used from concealment as the assault element, after the support element suppresses the target? That would leave Combatants in the Security and Support roles mostly, I suppose.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate RPG teams (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then fix them in place -  unleashing a volley of RPGs and MG fire from multiple directions.  The Fighters can then debus from civilian transport and storm the building directly.

One idea I did read in the above manuals which I think could work well in CMSF is using taxis to form an impromptu roadblock - using them to block in either end of a street so that exits are impeded. The taxis will be destroyed, of course, but if it keeps the enemy in the kill zone longer, so much the better.
 

Have been thinking a lot about Opfor in general (sucker for an underdog), and how to approach this with CMSF 2, particularly from a PBEM standpoint, and trying to be somewhat competitive.

Doing some experimenting with CMSF 1:

The heaviest option for civilians in CMSF will allow Combatants (not Fighters (Mujahideen), but the guys in camo and jeans), and possibly VBIED (but not taxis) to remain invisible until very close indeed - it seems like if these are Move-ing along city tiles, these won't be spotted until around 2 action spots away. VBIED seem to have some degree of stealth, but nothing like as much as that. Usually that doesn't matter, since they cover a huge amount of ground pretty quickly.

They are not spotted directly, but the soldiers will still call out "SPOTTED AN ENEMY UNIT", etc. - so there's some contextual clues. Occasionally they might pop up with contact icons, but still nothing they'll directly fire at. Originally I thought this was a problem, but on further thought I think this might actually be okay - the manuals talk about spotting unusual behaviour in civilians, dogs etc., so this could be put down to that kind of observation. I was also originally of the opinion that this "stealth device" approach to modelling insurgents wasn't terribly great, but it does seem to match up to the tactical considerations quite well - hiding amongst civilians to get to point-blank range, etc.

Combatants do not have the firepower to go into a straight fight with any Blufor squad, at least with small arms, and they're mostly equipped with small arms alone. This means that I suspect the correct approach is to force them into something other that a straight fight.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then give them a really good reason to leave the building - ideally a VBIED, but perhaps an ATGM, mortar fire, RPG volley, whatever.  The Combatants can then open up whist he US squad is fleeing the building, giving them the advantage that they need. Any technicals are ideal here as flankers - probably not engaging directly, but cutting off retreat routes.


The TC 7-100 series are the  recent OpFor guides for the US. 2 and 3 are of particular use:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/TC_7-100.2_-_Opposing_Force_Tactics_(December_2011).pdf
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/TC_7-100.3_-_Irregular_Opposing_Forces_(January_2014).pdf

The interesting things here are how generic these are (the same basic concepts work for Syrian Mechanised infantry battalion assaults, or a fighter group ambushing a few HMMWV's). This generally splits a plan into three sections:

Active Element - This is the element that will make the assault/carry out the ambush/manoeuvre onto the target.
Security Element - Early warning for the approach of reinforcements, possibly delaying or preventing this. Typically this might just be an RPG team, but could include spies, IED's, mines, ATGMs, etc.
Support Element - C2, Direct fires, Indirect fires and mobility.

Direct fires will be MG's, RPGs and maybe an ATGM. Mobility is obviously civilian transport.

The "C2" part of that is worth some thought. Irregular forces don't get much in terms of equipment, and I can't remember if there's much in the way of radios in CMSF. The Spy in Passage at Wilcox (CMSF 2 Demo) definitely has a radio, so there's that. I do wonder if it's worth using teams in taxis as messengers, sharing the spy spotting information horizontally? In any case, it's going to be important to pay attention to force (cell?) structure here, and a reasonable percentage of your force allocation should probably go on spies (or at least dedicated to spotting Combatants), since you'll need all the help you can get.


This does leave the Fighters in a slightly odd position. Without the stealth of the Combatants, they're mostly useful for having better equipment (including ATGMs), usually a little better training, and higher motivation. Whilst that means that they're a good choice for the actual attack, they don't have the same ability to get close without some thought - I wonder if they're best used from concealment as the assault element, after the support element suppresses the target? That would leave Combatants in the Security and Support roles mostly, I suppose.

E.g.:

The mission is to attack a US squad, inside a police station. The plan is to use spies to discover their location, infiltrate RPG teams (whilst holding fire!) to locations surrounding the building, then fix them in place -  unleashing a volley of RPGs and MG fire from multiple directions.  The Fighters can then debus from civilian transport and storm the building directly.

One idea I did read in the above manuals which I think could work well in CMSF is using taxis to form an impromptu roadblock - using them to block in either end of a street so that exits are impeded. The taxis will be destroyed, of course, but if it keeps the enemy in the kill zone longer, so much the better.
 

Actually spotting stationary units inside buildings is tough for spies - they don't have any enhanced optics, thermals or other gear, so the most useful method will be to try to spot them on approach to a target - this means covering all likely avenues of approach with eyes. Either spies or combatants should be decent at this, since they won't need to move around all that much, and can do this from concealment, making them mostly invisible. Actually standing against an occupied building or walking inside will get a spy spotted, of course. Sniper teams will have scopes, which might help.

A lot, therefore, will rely on careful reading of the terrain, anticipation and planning - setting up the attack is even more important with irregular forces than others, since you want the offensive to be as short and overwhelming as possible - anything that gives Blufor a chance to recover the initiative will usually end badly for the Irregulars.

Defensively, the forces can't manage anything particularly complex, and a positional defence is probably the way forward. The key is to try to remove the ability of Blufor to reduce these positions from a safe distance - the overwhelming firepower is very difficult to deal with.

e.g.,
The mission is to defend a small village against enemy mechanised infantry and armour. The plan is to fortress three locations with small arms troops, mines and defences. Each position can cover the others with at least one ATGM, and the best areas for a Bluefor base of fire are made unattractive through IEDs, mines and mortar fire.

ATGMs have a ton of reach, and even the AT-3 is a powerful capability to have. Being able to mutually support each position, and removing the best bases of fire will reduce the firepower disparity, and smoke can be used to reduce this further - you want a short ranged, overwhelming firefight.

ATGMs are very easily exposed when fired, but quick to pack up - one shot, and then moving to a (pre-planned) secondary location to set up again is probably the best SOP. Setting up in depth, on the second of a pair of buildings can help (the first will block a lot of the fire), but you do want to shift it as soon as possible. AT-3 takes seconds to break down, and five minutes to set up - I think that's more than worth it if it means you end up with two dead Bradleys, and it's a lot easier to relocate than a WW2 AT gun.

I think the overall trend here is that you typically have to work an awful lot harder with Redfor - you need to have a great understanding of the terrain, accurate anticipation of enemy movements, and the ability (or luck) to squeeze out every advantage that you can. Clearly some environments (Urban terrain) help tremendously.

Well, now I have started all the scenarios as pbem matches... I will report on the multiplayer potential of each when I am done.
 

I know this is not a good moment. All the eyes are on the Syrian front now with the release of CMSF2 demo. Anyhow, here is our second game with @JoMc67.
The scenario is named Meet Small Village QB-287.btt. This is again a meeting engagement with two objectives that are closed to each other. Both sides is having a Reinforced Infantry Platoon to start with. But, this time we have decided to increase the scenario's duration to 20 minutes plus 5 minutes extra possible.
Also, we have changed a little bit our house rules as follow:
No Pre-Planned Arty (or Area-Fire from Ground Units) on Turn 1 of a Meeting Engagement, or from Defender. Player will need to Call-In Arty normally (Attacker in Attack/Defense Games are exempt and can use Pre-Planned Arty). Players will let the Computer AI choose what Targets to shoot at (player can't choose Targets, but can still use 'Area-Fire'). Player can still use Smoke at anytime and any Location on the Map.   Units can check LOF (line of Fire, and thus Area-Fire) at two locations per turn...Once before Movement (exact location of Unit at beginning of turn), and at the  first Waypoint (doesn't matter how short or long the Waypoint is)...However, if you check LOF at that Waypoint, then you must keep that Waypoint w/o any alteration (can't delete or change it until next turn). Area-Fire has to be roughly within 2x Action-Spots (360 degrees) to the Enemy Unit/Icon (this includes Direct HE fire from Onboard Arty...Smoke can still be anywhere on map)...Arty called in by an HQ or FO is exampt and can be conducted anywhere on the Map. Players Can't click on Enemy Icons or Units during a Game. Vehicle Smoke Dischargers (not Smoke Shells) is controlled by the Computer AI, and not by the Player. This will be a DAR hoping to receive advices from the readers and applies them during the battle. 🙂

The Quick Battle Maps are very well along.  No QB Map shipped in CMSF2 is an untouched hold over from CMSF1.  And there are a LOT OF THEM

Actually, doing some tests has really made me appreciate how well the TacAI works for the BMP-2. The At-5 needs reloading manually (i.e., the gunner unbuttoning), so the BMP will fire off an AT-5, then pop smoke and/or reverse to break LOS, and give it's gunner the cover to reload. Shoot and scoot, in quite a convincing fashion.

If it isn't safe, then it won't reload the AT-5, so the rate of fire in general will drop.

Essentially, ATGM's on a BMP are a nice-to-have, and they increase the size of the explosion when they remember that they are BMPs. Actually using them as an ATGM platform is not particularly easy, and it's not really what they're for. If you had to, I'd want them hull down, at least a couple of km away from whatever I'm pointing them at.

The BMP's fire control is entirely manual and its optics are unenhanced. It does not surprise me that the Bradley, a much newer and more expensive design, comes out on top more often. 
The BMP is supposed to have a 3 man crew but I believe when the squad disembarks one of those men is the vehicle's commander. I am not sure if this is intentional, it would not surprise me since the vehicle is supposed to cooperate closely with its' dismounts. The BMP is a first generation IFV meant to provide protection and fire support for the infantry. It can fight armor but really is not intended to duel anything much heavier than an M113. It caused a major stir in the west when it came out but much of the thinking behind it is very 1945ish, aside from the NBC protection which was a major selling point of the vehicle not covered in the game's scope. I personally like it quite a bit, and actually prefer the BMP-1 to the later models myself. The BMP-2's autocannon is undoubtedly better against armor but I prefer the Grom against soft targets and light vehicles that are so common amongst BLUFOR. 

Huh? The only thing I mentioned was mods and I figured those out.
SF1 scenarios aren't gonna work with the demo. You need to wait for the full game to be released.
 
Mord.

Manual is in your CMBN Documents, and is in two parts - there's a CMBN-specific manual, and a more generic manual for the engine ("CM Engine 4 manual" or similar).

Former is what you want to reference for TO&E, etc., latter is for how things like AI groups or the shortcuts work.