Flibby

That sounds like a great idea but I'm not sure where I'd start. Just place enemy positions where is out them? I would probably split squads down into sub units and set up mgs in the town and behind some walls or in hedges but the AI might be smarter than I

I posted a while back about creating an AAR to try to get some tactical advice. I have used the various resources in the forum including Bil H’s blogs to try to methodically approach a battle and see how this improves my typical results. I would be really grateful for people’s honest insight into my planning process and then how the battle goes from here. The battle that I have chosen is AD Snow Day from Combat Mission: Fortress Italy. I wasn’t able to find the designer to credit them. The scenario requires the capture of a small village. Our forces are 2 initial platoons of New Zealand Infantry with 1 platoon to arrive later on to complete the company. Supporting is a sniper, Vickers .303 water cooled WW1 HMG and mortars attached to the platoons with a low supply of HE and smoke rounds. Enemy forces are a platoon strength unit likely with a number of MG34/42 positions at crucial points including in the village. I have tried to identify the key terrain and avenues of approach. View from AA3 towards KT2 View from KT 2 KT 1 is the village itself. The village offers good observation over the open ground in the middle between the forest and the village objective. KT1 also offers observation over to KT2. KT 2 is the forest on the left flank. KT2 offers observation of the ground required to pass in order to get into the objective area. If the enemy holds this ground they can pepper my forces with enfilade fire as we approach the objective. If we hold the ground we will be able to support our forces via supporting fires and clearing the area will ensure that our forces are not attacked from this angle. There are three broad avenues of attack. AA1 which is the left flank to KT1. AA2 which is the central approach and AA3 which is the right flanking arrow. AA1 would leave a large area to cross to KT1 from KT2 and it would be difficult to support an assault from that angle. AA2 would be the obvious attack route due to the short distance of open ground before we could get a foothold in KT1. AA3 suffers the same issues as AA1 and does not allow for much support – in addition our forces could end up being funnelled in the small space available and held up by minor enemy forces. My thoughts are to take AA2 with a supporting smoke screen from KT2 allowing the advance and supporting fires from KT2 dealing with any fixed positions. My tentative plan is to work 1 Platoon along with the Vickers HMG and the mortar from 2 Platoon up to KT2. When KT2 is secured, 2 Platoon and 3 Platoon when available are to move to the stone wall in-front of the forest along AA2 before moving into the objective under cover of smoke. Once a foothold is established in the village, at that point victory should be certain. How does the plan sound? Am I way off base with the key terrain / avenues of approach that other people would look at? One concern I have is that all of the potential positions for support, even KT2, are within a few hundred meters of observation and one way or another I am going to have to fight into KT2 and will lose people doing so unless I just smoke the open gap.. I will look to get the ball rolling on moves at the weekend.

Wrong forum - it's for Red Thunder my bad

nope just something I'm playing against the computer Apparently the left also has assault guns in great overwatch positions:

Does anyone have any advice on how to approach this from the Ger perspective? The enemy positions on the vineyard point annihilate anything that I try to move centrally towards it. The flanking position on the right is covered with un-passable forest and I have no AT for smoke. The only ideas I can think of is a large sweeping movement to the left that I don't really have the time for with all the objectives that I have to take or using the smoke rounds stowed in the tanks to try to obscure the position and running around the rear with the view that my turrets will be able to turn around faster than the 100mm assault guns.

When I run the usual activation link from within the game folder is just brings up the new steam game launcher - how can I activate the battle pack please? Ta

Ok it sounds like there's some interest. That's great. Artkin has generously offered to be my opponent. I'll have a think and chat with him how best to set this thing up

Yes very much like that but not necessarily scripted. Similarly to the AAR threads that Bil etc do whereby the opponent doesn't go into that thread, this would be the same except rather than someone showcasing how good they are, I would set out my thoughts and people could chip in with corrections / advice on the best way to proceed vs my plan if that makes sense?

I primarily play Combat Mission in order to build up my knowledge and practical implementation of tactics. It's a sandbox unparalleled in this way in my opinion. What I struggle with is taking the superb advice from @Bil Hardenbergerin his blog and @Combatintman's planning thread, @Hapless's videos or @domfluff 's helpful tips, and applying it to my own play. I find it very easy to read and understand the principles, but when I sit and look at the map I still find myself with difficulties setting out and then following through with a plan. I guess i'm more of a visual learner. I wanted to scope out the interest in my setting out a game, either a SP game or a PBEM game against an experienced player, and using it as a basis for talking through my approach to the game. A little bit like a tactical decision game you might look at from an old army journal. I would set out what I think I should do, others could comment and improve my suggestions, and then we could see how it plays out. An exercise in group think if you please. Obviously this would mainly benefit me at the expense of some hard earned time from others which I would be extremely grateful for, but perhaps it would help others and be a resource for other people in the future. It could always be the basis of a video AAR if there was any interest too. I can't promise a turn a day, I have a 6 week old son who is determined to limit my PC time currently but it's something I'm keen to do if there are any willing CM Rommels to get involved.

Seemingly by being in the military - i was part of the UK Fight Club thing but my request for a copy was not followed through.

This is a point that I always struggle with re overwatch. If I have to move a unit to provide overwatch for a scout - by definition the enemy that I would be engaging with the overwatch, can also engage me. That being the case: 1) is there any point in scouting if I am moving units into sight of any possible enemy anyway to overwatch them; 2) If the overwatch team/vehicle gets into position and is engaged, what then? Do you escape and find somewhere else to scout now you have some information about the enemy, or do you build up a greater base of fire and then perform a platoon/company attack on whatever you have discovered, therefore committing yourself to a plan of action?

Some really good ideas here. Thanks all @chuckdyke @domfluff @Halmbarte I do like @Bil Hardenberger's idea of not having a fixed plan before the mission - I get from your blog that I have read previously about the different attack avenues for infantry / armoured units but beyond that I find it incredibly difficult to work out a plan in my head when I don't know the enemies disposition. The times that I do form a detailed plan, 'this is where I'm going to put this SBF position, this is where I am going to assault from...' only to find out that there's an MG over-watching that SBF position. I get that not every SBF position is going to be entered in secret, but it sure helps. I'm going to have a play around with this to see what I can find to work best but I may be back with screenshots

I have realised that a lot of my issues when attacking came from two things. Firstly, moving units too far at once, leading to units caught out in the open, and sending platoons out without first scoping the route by sending scouts. I read somewhere that you should not send a team anywhere a scout had not been, or a platoon somewhere a team had not been first. My question now is how best to use scouts. Should I be trying to identify all of the enemy positions before moving the bulk of my forces from cover, or is this too cautious and I should just be moving scouts a certain distance ahead of the main body? When I've done the latter previously I've had issues because an enemy can be unspotted by the scouts and then open up when the main body rolls into a kill sack. Finally, how often do you engage in recon by fire with scouts? Or do you tend to sit and spot with then in good op spots?

I didn't realise targeted fire was essentially a command to increase and focus ROF. Thank you. Does it also get friendlies to stand up when pinned more often?

Thanks - very interesting

When I target a unit inside a building, it makes sense that this is a sort of aimed shot at the ENY standing at the window, and should therefore have a greater chance of hitting someone than area fire. In my head, area fire is spraying the building, or windows, indiscriminately. Is this accurate and does anyone have any detail on the calculation of how much more likely aimed fire rather than area fire is to hit/cause casualties? Thanks

I didn't seem to get a response when I requested a copy via the Fight Club folks

I know that this wasn't the point that you were making, but iirc the attack up goose green was a bit of a farce until some AT (Milan?) was repurposed to bring some fire down on the Argentine trenches. Less fire and manoeuvre and more suicidal frontal charges. If I'm approaching an enemy controlled village for example, and I only have infantry, no AT no arty support, then even if known positions can be suppressed, any enemy worth their salt will have a second line of keyhole positions. An assaulting element, if they have managed to find a covered approach, then they are inevitably going to take serious fire from undiscovered positions. Im intetested to see any light infantry combat in the Ukraine which is more than the static firefights ice seen. Not being snarky there btw. Genuinely I would be interested!

What I meant is that the close infantry assault seems prohibitively expensive in terms of lives when you have stand-off weapons like javelins and CAS to sit at range and cause casualties. The fire and manoeuvre exhibited in ww2 worked because there was lower lethality in the average platoon and a lower effective range surely? If I am attacking a village occupied by baddies, and I have armour, javelins, grenade launchers or any other artillery support, why would I try to get close?

The responses here have been really helpful. From watching some more videos, the father away modern warfare is from my in-built belief of how infantry combat should work - mainly due to the fact that infantry, or at least infantry using rifles, are not the key players in many attacks as a rule. It is fairly rare, from what I can see, that you are going to be able to perform an 'Assault at Brecourt Manor' type infantry assault. There is simply no need when you are trying to minimise casualties, and have access to stand off weapons. I have to try to plan along the lines of minimising exposure on the modern battlefield, picking my matchups where I can mass overwhelming or unmatched fire power, and blow everything which might even smell like an enemy soldier, to kingdom come before I get there.

Really enjoyed watching this.

This is what I'm finding. I dont want to put words in your mouth, but the route to success seems fairly far away from the standard battle drill platoon attack. Doing that standard attack means putting your suppression arm into harm's way, necessarily where the bad guys can also see you. This can work when I can overwhelm a unit with an mg when they are in the open. But when more than one enemy position can see you, you are really needing to isolate and destroy positions by fire one by one.

Thanks for taking the time to do that. I like the explanation of how to match enemy reactions in particular.

So rather than thinking about defeating the whole of the enemy, perhaps thinking of how i can destroy each little bit with as little cost as possible is the best way to think about it?

For, I suppose, reasons of simplicity, army doctrine in manuals deals with how to defeat single enemy units in one position via fire an manoeuvre. This I understand and can work through effectively. Where I struggle is attacking an enemy defense including armour and infantry set up in such a way, usually in urban terrain, where one needs to enter a kill zone overwatched from multiple positions. The effectiveness of enemy fire in CMBS means one fire team can decimate a platoon in seconds. It is obviously very difficult to build up or achieve fire superiority in such a situation. I usually end up using smoke and/or finding positions where I can 'snipe' eny armour without also being seen but it is a laborious process. Does anyone have any tips on the mindset for attacking in more complex scenarios than the usual suppress, advance via covered routes and kick 'em in the rear, which seems to deal with an unlikely situation in CMBS. Many thanks