Flibby

Thanks for the reply and help. I have become more comfortable with WW2 infantry based games because you can see where you're taking fire from, and then use that information to re-position in order to condense firepower onto that spot to kill/suppress the enemy. Clearly with armour it's a little tricky when one bad move means you are turned into a human torch inside a steel tin can. I'll re-try the first mission focussing on overwhelming the enemy with armour from different angles once I've done some recon and see how that plays out.

This isn't specific to CW but it has manifested itself early on because I've been trying to do the NTC campaign extremely unsuccesfully. When there isn't any cover, how does one approach with armour and destroy tanks waiting in overwatch? I can spot the ENY tanks with my infantry, that's not an issue, so I know where they are, but when the ENY are sat there waiting for me to pop up over the hill, even if I'm careful to get into Hull Down, I just don't see how I don't take vast casualties because the advantage in spotting is obviously to the person waiting there with their sights on the horizon rather than me driving over the top. I guess I could get my INF to throw smoke to let me get into position but I'm not sure how feasible this is every time. Not fighting in the ENY kill-zone is obviously impossible in these missions because there's no other way around and the points are for destroying the ENY so they do need to be engaged.

Thanks Elvis. Take my money now

Just a quick question on this one before I push the button - does purchasing from BF mean that I'll miss out on the PBEM integration that Matrix/Slitherine are doing for the June realise, or not? Cheers

Sounds like a great idea. Happy to help with it. The book is great. There's a similar one for the Russians we could look at too.

I honestly believe that with this game launching on Steam, it'll be more popular than any of the other titles by a huge distance. I can't wait

Very interesting takes - thanks guys. The idea of your military supply chain being dependent upon overseas countries is scary.

I just wanted to make sure that it's not just me... The typical assaulting tactics following suppression of the enemy works in WW2 titles it appears to be redundant in modern combat. Why would you risk boots on the ground when you can reveal every enemy position one by one using scouts and then proceed to destroy them with Artillery, Mortars, Fast Air, Helicopters etc, and simply walk your boys in after the destruction is complete?

Perfect answer - thanks mate.

I think the lethality of CMBS helps as a learning aid. You don't get many second chances... If you stay hidden unless you have overwhelming firepower you can have freedom. Something I never used to do was using covered arcs to maintain stealth. Unless you pay attention at a low level you'd not realise that the AT gun loader gave away your position firing his pistol at an enemy 200m away

I'm not sure if this is working as intended, and if so I can see the logic, but after using my AT weapons (actual AT teams not just RPG teams) my teams lose morale and run away. I can understand this in a 'we don't want to stick around after making our position known to everyone in the vicinity' shoot and scoot methodology but I can't control where they are running to!

Sorry to resurrect the thread somewhat, but I just wanted to thank you guys - something that I can be guilty of not coming back to threads to do. Having built on my skills using lots of the advice here, I am improving! This is from a recent CMBS small battle against the AI only, but it was a mission that previously I had no hope of winning, but now, using realistic tactics, I was able to do just that. I think the best advice was 1) To slow down; 2) To zoom down to eye level and think "would I run over there?" before placing a move order, and 3) For every movement I make a fire plan. I work out what enemy positions, or possible positions will be able to see me when I move, how I am going to deal with that, i.e. which of my over watching squads can open fire, and so on. It has made the game 10x more enjoyable.

Getting slightly closer

That is true, however until the AT gun and Stug are dealt with i'll be out ranged. Also the enemy is thoroughly entrenched and the main guns take a LONG time to either deal with bunkers or with entrenched enemies until we get into Canister or Flame range

Thanks - at least it isn't just me! I'm going to try to lay some more smoke to cover my line rather than the germans, just to get my onto the slops so that i can set up my fires as soon as the smoke starts to clear. The issue is the pesky AT gun but perhaps i can sacrifice some Ivans beforehand to get it's location and focus that down first before charging the flame tanks over

Has anyone found a decent way to get around this map? I saw another thread from a long time ago about how a central thrust is the only real way, as the other avenues are so slim, however even with smoke and mortar support the sheer amount of bunkers and MGs overwhelms my attackers and i get bogged down. The Panzer 4 which appears on the crest always seems to take a lot of hits, and the pesky AT gun shifts position, which is good for replay ability i suppose!

Really interesting replies, thank you to everyone. The responses help with my mindset question. Really rather than thinking about setting up one SBF position to deal with an enemy position, I think i need to be thinking about a whole fireplan in order to gain fire superiority over the enemy where it counts, and then exploiting that area, making sure that enemy positions that I cannot adequately suppress are avoided until later, when hopefully a different angle opens up from manoeuvre that means i can bring forces to bear on it. I like the idea of tactics scalling up as described by IICptMillerII. I must confess that I have focussed on platoon level tactics where I always have more than a platoon as my disposal therefore I'm thinking too small scale and trying to do the TacAI's job for it.

I think that i've found the issue with trying to use, in Combat Mission, what are probably best referred to as 'text book' tactics. The like found in manuals and battle drills etc. Text book tactics usually focus on something like an assault with one platoon on a fixed enemy position. You set up an SBF or base of fire, send another team around the side via a concealed and covered route and assault from there. By trying to implement this in CMx2 I've just been frustrated consistently. The issue, that i'm sure i am the last person to realise, is that these tactics don't work, simply because the situation in manuals is false. Only the most braindead enemy sets up in a single isolated position. Most enemies have a series of supporting positions which mean that an attempt to follow the book either leads to your manoeuvre force being pinned down by another enemy position, or your SBF position being engaged and overwhelmed. If my reading of the situation is correct, firstly what is the purpose of troops being taught in such a way, is it more for the sake of simplicity? And secondly, how do i get my mindset right to apply to CMx2?

To be honest they all have large and small options. I prefer smaller battles in CMBS

I've been playing around with this on some test scenarios in hot-seat mode. I seem to get relatively similar results whether I approach a SBF position, covered or not, by crawling the last few spots or not. There doesn't seem to be any cover that a 3-4 man MG team can get into unseen from 3-400m away. As such it appears sensible to just make sure that enough firepower is arriving at the same time that the enemy can't shoot at them all, and then establish fire superiority. What i seem to be getting my head around is that fire superiority isn't about getting the best position for your troops, its just about getting enough troops with LOS to an enemy that you can suppress their units. It doesn't matter if you're in the open if the enemy has their heads down. Of course it's nice to be behind a stone wall giving suppressive fire, but 5 squads in the open with LOS to the enemy will establish fire superiority better than 2 squads behind a wall, or 5 squads without LOS.

Certainly when I last played Graviteam Tactics I spent 80% of the time wandering around on my own. The other 20% was trying to figure out the UI

I think that part of the problem comes from traditional army "battle drills". These documents always use scenarios where you have a platoon attacking a single enemy squad. That squad is sat in a Bush and they've seemingly been left all alone like some sort of punishment. Of course a text book fire and manoeuvre approach is easy here, but how often does that scenario occur? I understand the need for the rank and file to have simple and easy to understand instructions, but is not as easy to find instructional materiel for lieutenants and captains on how to approach attacks to more complex defensive setups. I guess most of that relies upon the same principles being applied with a dollop of common sense.

To be honest the scenario played out with losing a lot of men to take the buildings which were occupied with a whole squad each. I think it sums up how futile it can be to attack occupied buildings without high explosive shells in one form or another.

Thats interesting. I've never thought of using the rifle squads to enable the sbf position, more that the SBF would cover the rifle squads. Wouldn't the rifle squads be likely to suffer if they advanced over the hilltop without any overwatching units?

Really interesting responses guys thank you for that.