domfluff

Yeah, I don't think there's a model for "more tanks = easier to spot", but there's definitely a percentage chance of seeing each tank individually, each spotting cycle. Three of them together make it more likely that one will be spotted. If one is spotted, the spotter will be looking directly at where the other two are, making it easier to spot those as well, especially when the fighting starts.

The LOS/LOF for tanks creates these problems all the time. You'd have the same problem in reality, of course, but you'd hope that a decent real-life crew would sort this out amongst themselves. The Combat Mission TacAI (as in, choosing which weapon to use, how to react on an individual level) is really pretty great - it's rare that you see individual soldiers doing anything really odd, unlike on the larger scale. This is one of those edge cases where the sim breaks down a little, but it's far from fatal.

I totally agree with that. The IR the US have makes smoke less than ideal. Even against the Russians it is not as good as you might expect. IMHO.
 
I agree with you there.
 
Yep.
 
Thank you for pointing that out. I had been keeping people in the vehicle and over half the time they were not giving me the benefit because they were not sitting in the big chair.
 
I do not know how much of a difference it makes but having the squad leader with his men *does* make a big difference on the ground so I'll stick with other units for filling the BMP commander's chair.
 

 
I have also been using the BMP to provide fire power and actually fight. What I have had some success with is keeping them behind terrain and out of sight until there is something to shoot at. So, my current MO is to have BMP's ferry the soldiers close to the action and then dismount the troops and have the BMPs stay behind terrain until the troops have found things to shoot at. That could either be because they were shot at or just when the find good places for the enemy to be, that are just to dangerous to leave pristine. This is by no means a flawless process. Weapons are so deadly that sometimes whole squads are just gone before the BMP can move up. So, I feel like I do not have the balance right. I can tell you for sure that an attack can fall apart fast when you loose the support of the BMPs. I just had a platoon plus reduced to stragglers in one battle. Things were going pretty well following my plan above until the enemy started to get traction on taking out the BMPs. My fire power dropped so fast the unit was rendered combat ineffective very quickly. All because I only gained fire superiority locally.
 

This is what I do, which works really well for me. The actual Hull Down-move waypoint is probably too far forward to be safe, but it's indicative really.

When you target a grid square, it's getting LOS to a point somewhat *above* the square, so there's an offset. It won't do as good a job as the Abrams (ahem) in the photo above, but it'll do a good-enough job for CM, in my experience. The experiences of others seem to differ.

 

Using 203mm artillery to make foxholes seems like an awful idea to me, where the same (or better) protection could be supplied using far cheaper smoke assets, in CM or real life. Smoke-penetrating IR might make a huge difference to this calculation, but even in that situation I'm not sure that foxhole-by-artillery is viable.

However, this is a starting point for a discussion. I don't feel like attacking ad hominem is useful at all here - you certainly don't need to be able to demonstrate practical use to teach well, since teaching and practice are often vastly different skills. It's certainly correct to debate the value of the advice, and you're free to counter with alternatives. 

To compare - two points that Olek has posted that I have found particularly interesting revolve around the use of BMP's to support an attack, and using a mixture of artillery assets on the same target. The former is important, since unlike the Stryker or an APC, the BMP is clearly a fighting vehicle, albeit not a terribly *good* one (at least in terms of survivability). That means that the platoon needs it's BMPs to be exposed and using it's fire support, but can't afford to expose them too much, since they'll just lose the asset.

In his earlier post, the BMP's are dismounting about 1km away from their targets, and the infantry dismounts are proceeding on foot. I've been playing around with not dismounting the MG, sniper and HQ teams, keeping them to spot, and only advancing with the six man squads. That seems to work pretty well - the dismounts can't really deal with any incoming fire, but the BMPs certainly can from that distance. In that scheme, the other squads are mostly there for when the infantry are leading (in close terrain), or setting up a defensive position. The 1km dismount is a large distance, and the infantry take some time to cross it - there's plenty of time for a response to be generated here - but it's definitely a way to get more out of the BMP support. In that scheme of attack, the dismounts can begin to engage anyone left on the objective, but may have difficulty pushing through. This is when the BMPs can be brought up for closer support, or can flank the objective to get things moving.

Using 203mm artillery to make foxholes seems like an awful idea to me, where the same (or better) protection could be supplied using far cheaper smoke assets, in CM or real life. Smoke-penetrating IR might make a huge difference to this calculation, but even in that situation I'm not sure that foxhole-by-artillery is viable.

However, this is a starting point for a discussion. I don't feel like attacking ad hominem is useful at all here - you certainly don't need to be able to demonstrate practical use to teach well, since teaching and practice are often vastly different skills. It's certainly correct to debate the value of the advice, and you're free to counter with alternatives. 

To compare - two points that Olek has posted that I have found particularly interesting revolve around the use of BMP's to support an attack, and using a mixture of artillery assets on the same target. The former is important, since unlike the Stryker or an APC, the BMP is clearly a fighting vehicle, albeit not a terribly *good* one (at least in terms of survivability). That means that the platoon needs it's BMPs to be exposed and using it's fire support, but can't afford to expose them too much, since they'll just lose the asset.

In his earlier post, the BMP's are dismounting about 1km away from their targets, and the infantry dismounts are proceeding on foot. I've been playing around with not dismounting the MG, sniper and HQ teams, keeping them to spot, and only advancing with the six man squads. That seems to work pretty well - the dismounts can't really deal with any incoming fire, but the BMPs certainly can from that distance. In that scheme, the other squads are mostly there for when the infantry are leading (in close terrain), or setting up a defensive position. The 1km dismount is a large distance, and the infantry take some time to cross it - there's plenty of time for a response to be generated here - but it's definitely a way to get more out of the BMP support. In that scheme of attack, the dismounts can begin to engage anyone left on the objective, but may have difficulty pushing through. This is when the BMPs can be brought up for closer support, or can flank the objective to get things moving.

Using 203mm artillery to make foxholes seems like an awful idea to me, where the same (or better) protection could be supplied using far cheaper smoke assets, in CM or real life. Smoke-penetrating IR might make a huge difference to this calculation, but even in that situation I'm not sure that foxhole-by-artillery is viable.

However, this is a starting point for a discussion. I don't feel like attacking ad hominem is useful at all here - you certainly don't need to be able to demonstrate practical use to teach well, since teaching and practice are often vastly different skills. It's certainly correct to debate the value of the advice, and you're free to counter with alternatives. 

To compare - two points that Olek has posted that I have found particularly interesting revolve around the use of BMP's to support an attack, and using a mixture of artillery assets on the same target. The former is important, since unlike the Stryker or an APC, the BMP is clearly a fighting vehicle, albeit not a terribly *good* one (at least in terms of survivability). That means that the platoon needs it's BMPs to be exposed and using it's fire support, but can't afford to expose them too much, since they'll just lose the asset.

In his earlier post, the BMP's are dismounting about 1km away from their targets, and the infantry dismounts are proceeding on foot. I've been playing around with not dismounting the MG, sniper and HQ teams, keeping them to spot, and only advancing with the six man squads. That seems to work pretty well - the dismounts can't really deal with any incoming fire, but the BMPs certainly can from that distance. In that scheme, the other squads are mostly there for when the infantry are leading (in close terrain), or setting up a defensive position. The 1km dismount is a large distance, and the infantry take some time to cross it - there's plenty of time for a response to be generated here - but it's definitely a way to get more out of the BMP support. In that scheme of attack, the dismounts can begin to engage anyone left on the objective, but may have difficulty pushing through. This is when the BMPs can be brought up for closer support, or can flank the objective to get things moving.

Don't spend lots of time scouting. Don't bother to fix and flank, except with tank forces, who can do it at speed. But also don't just run infantry at the enemy or ignore casualties. That isn't Russian doctrine or how it actually worked, it is just a cartoon slander of their methods spread by the Germans, whomthought it made them defending against it sound all clever and also heroic for braving it etc. (A rather incoherent set of spin objectives, incidentally, but that is an aside).

The first idea is that any definite plan pushed will be faster than slow recon pull. The next is that the process of destroying the enemy really isn't that complicated - it is a matter of laying your ship alongside the enemy, as Nelson put it before Trafalgar. Meaning close aggressively with the enemy, brave what he can dish out to dish out as much as you can yourself, and trust in your strength to destroy him before he destroys you.

But that isn't a headlong charge. Above all, it isn't about movement in the first place, it is about firepower and punishment dealt.

The first infantry wave is fixing, but doesn't have to do it everywhere, or care too much about finding the enemy. Walking over your chosen route of advance will either penetrate the enemy and break up his defense, or he'll find you, and reveal himself stopping that. Let him. Then blow the living crap out of everything that reveals itself, with all your firepower arms. Tanks, mortars, artillery support - call down the wrath of God to avenge the first wave. All the first wave itself needs to do in the meantime is hit the dirt, take what cover they can, and rally as best they can. They did their part drawing the enemy's fire. Don't press. It isn't a race. Save as many of them as possible, by blasting the guys shooting at them and skulking them out of sight.

Then send the second wave. Not a new idea. Not a fancy razzle dazzle end around head fake double reverse. Send them at the spots your artillery and other fire support just blasted into the lower atmosphere, while the dust is still moving upward. They may occupy the places so blasted. Or they may draw fire from a new set of shooters, and repeat the experience of the first wave. You don't really care which. There is no rushing. You have all week. Everyone will get a turn before you are done, every bit of fire support you have will chew on something, and the enemy will need to shoot you all down and still have something left. If they don't, it may be in the bottom half of the clock that they start crumbling. Waves that have been out of the leading role are rallying the while, shooting back. You don't care how long it takes, but not because any of it is tentative or any part of the clock is quiet. Reuse the rallied early waves as fourth and fifth attacks. The whole point is to outlast them, to have the last rallied wave standing. Inexorable is the watchword.

Each wave doesn't bunch up. It isn't trying to run the enemy off his feet in one go. You only expose what it takes to make a serious threat to enemy position if he doesn't open up with a major line of battle. The ideal size of one wave is a numerical match for the defenders on the same frontage. You don't want to give them denser targets that make all their weapons more effective. Instead you want them to face trying to hold off the third wave with empty magazines and surrounded by blasted friends, worked over repeatedly by all your fire support.

They won't stand. Lean hard enough into them, back off for nothing, make no mistakes, and use every weapon in your force for its proper target - and they will go down. Trust your combined strength, believe it, press home and make it so.

No captain can go far wrong who lays his ship alongside one of the enemy.

Stuarts have been a favorite of mine for a long time now. I love them, especially in city battles.

From a PBEM turn I received today. This is a meeting engagement on the Holland "Elst" map.

(Click on it to Enlarge)
 

*shhh*! We're having a fact-free nationalistic circle-jerk. Please do not intrude with your so-called "reality", or I'll set Kettler on you.

Next major WW2 title is the Bulge game.

CMRT is clearly getting a module at some point, and they've talked about more Eastern front modules, working backwards.
Logically this could be one per year, which would mean Kursk and Stalingrad in the next Eastern Front game (!)

CMFI might have a final module, but CMBN is presumably "finished", at least for the most part.

This all might change of course - Steve's been even more hesitant/cautious than normal when talking about the future.

 

Messing about around Kharkiv.



How many Russian soldiers does it take to work an ATM?
 

Poorly!

Theoretically. It really depends on how much they like the guy.

and being weird is a good thing, everyone is weird, I'm weird, I love being weird. But being wrong is another thing. Being "offended" over nonsense it's just, pathetic. Pathetically wrong. You have to have a sense of humor in life and not take something seriously, or you'll kill yourself one day. You got to laugh at the things in this life. How black people are continually being segregated against, or how the Americans killed all the native Americans, and called it freedom. It's funny because you're laughing at the Americans at how stupid they are. That's why its funny.

I think its in your best interest to stop posting for now.

You realize Combat Mission is a simulator right...its supposed to be realistic as possible.

have you met an Indian before? They are like miniature Einsteins.

Stryker battalions are in some ways suspiciously similar to Panzergrenadier units, including repurposing old tank guns as assault guns, embedded in the formation. They function in a very similar fashion on the whole, with the exception of the more sophisticated command and control.

Thus sure, they're for getting your guys into battle, but you usually don't want them fighting anyone, at least not without being fairly certain that they're in a safe position.