Flibby

This is not to disparage the information provided by George..
It is fairly damning however that in 2024 a computer simulation has not been developed in such a way as to remove the utter tedium of something as simple as moving a convoy of vehicles down a road.
The lack of sensible automation of repetitive tasks is one of the reasons that I find myself playing less and less of the game that I would love to be able to dedicate more time to.
I should be able to focus on the tactical development of the battle without having to oversee whether a BMP is going to try to drive through an impassable tile and get stuck unless I rigorously determine its path in advance.
Perhaps by the time I reach retirement I will have the time to do so unless It's been resolved by then 😄

TBH thats not at all how i think about it.

I know this image is just supposed to be an illustration but if i look at it with this plan overlayed it looks to me like a failed attack. Specifically 3rd pln will be unable to advance due to flanking fire while 1st and 2nd pln will both get pulled into the same forest and get artied.
This is what id expect the defensive setup to be. assuming the brown line marks a hill and the green area is forest.

Id also expect position 2 to be lightly defended but have a trp on it to destroy attacking units there and then run a counterattack from position 3 hugging the north west side of the hill.
So for a plan id go with something like this

1st platoon attacks position 3 with 2nd platoon following behind and supported with all arty. 3rd platoon runs a supporting attack on position 2 to tie it down.
this automatically takes all troops on position 1 out of the fight, hits the likely highest troop concentration with arty, clears the way to the objective and cuts the fallback path from position 1 and 2.

Good post with some good thoughts. Thanks. I like the idea of some places along the wider front get prioritized. By the same token some places can be de-prioritized - I'll skip going through the middle of that field thanks, we'll move around the forested edges instead. Using terrain is super important for sure. I might consider adjusting my usage a little based on thinking about your post.
 
You know it it was "obvious" it was still a good a reminder. We all need that now and then.

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...
I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."
The issues I found were either:
1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;
2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.
Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 
You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 
Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...
I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."
The issues I found were either:
1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;
2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.
Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 
You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 
Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

I don't know whether this might help anyone, or may be an interesting discussion point or not, but anyway...
I consistently used to look at a map and decide upon an avenue of attack based upon terrain alone. "That looks like a nice foresty side of the map, let's go that way.."
The issues I found were either:
1) The enemy was more concentrated on my avenue of attack, was as it was clear to me was also clear to them;
2) As I had overly committed to the attack on a narrow axis, my flanks were wide open and I was unable to maximise my frontage when my guys were so grouped up.
Having read through a number of WW2 era tactical manuals, my new approach is to attack over a fairly wide frontage overall, but to use narrower frontages on certain routes. Obviously this can be changed if the circumstances require it. 
You might think that this spreads your forces too widely, but remember, not all combat power is the guys on the ground. In-fact, most of your force multipliers are artillery, mortars, HMGs, tanks etc. If you focus these on the 'main effort' platoons then it doesn't matter that roughly the same number of rifle squads are spread over the front:

 
Edit - if this was really fking obvious, I apologise for everyone's time

You can always rely upon a forum of gamers to create more drama than at an Alabama Sweet 16 party.
If you've made a decent Battlepack off your own back, that is admirable and we'd all love to play it. You seem to have taken what looked to me as a 'jokey' remark way out of context.
I can't imagine a first responder having such a thin skin. Please take a while to calm down and come back afresh.

Thanks everyone. Some good food for thought so far.

You can always rely upon a forum of gamers to create more drama than at an Alabama Sweet 16 party.
If you've made a decent Battlepack off your own back, that is admirable and we'd all love to play it. You seem to have taken what looked to me as a 'jokey' remark way out of context.
I can't imagine a first responder having such a thin skin. Please take a while to calm down and come back afresh.

Speaking as a lawyer in the field, There's nothing in a EULA which could prevent anyone from subscribing/donating to a patreon account for someone who makes mods so long as the mods are publicly available and not dependent upon payments being received. It would simply not be enforceable.
It's technically illegal in some places to stream gaming content but for obvious reasons it's tolerated. 

I think you need to prioritise.  Forget work, food, family, pets, etc. 😉.
I get drawn into individual movements maybe too early, often after splitting just in case.  Takes a while on the bigger battles for sure.

I'll generally arrange my platoons and companies into whatever formation I think makes sense for the situation (line, column, wedge (one up, two back), vee (two up, one back)), and then give group orders for the whole platoon or company, confident that if the group does run into the enemy they'll at least be in a sensible formation. That does a lot to manage the complexity of a large formation in the early 'movement to contact' phase of a battle. But once contact is made, enemy positions are revealed, and I start forming more detailed plans, I see no alternative but to start giving more detailed orders to individual squads and teams. I just accept that I'll spend more time on each turn and play fewer turns per day for larger scenarios.

I give orders to groups (generally by Platoon) by first arranging them in the Setup Zone before the game is started. Once the game starts, this can be done by reforming Platoons/Companies in a "quiet" area, and resetting the formation for movement. Spacing can be controlled with this method by placing the squads whatever distance between is desired.
I will set Platoons in formations like a wedge, line, etc.. I'll also use two squads up, one back with support weapons and command units behind (in a diamond formation, generally).
Once this is done, I'll issue orders for movement, with all squads in the Platoon. I generally experiment with which squad the order is issued from - Most often this is the forward-most unit, but sometimes the rear-most unit works best. This is generally towards some terrain that offers cover, over-watch, or some other tactical concern for that pathing.
I will then adjust whatever squad/team ends up in an odd location. This is generally not too much of a task, as the formation is moving together and the setting of the end-point of the order is close to where it should be.
The main thing is spending some time at Setup to get everyone in the formations they need to be in for the tasks assigned.
(Ian answered as I was typing - generally the same idea!)

My MO is to try using group orders for company sized units. What I do is select the whole company, change the focused unit to something either on one of the edges or in the centre depending on where they will be moving. Then I plot some moves for all of them. Then I just check to make sure nothing too crazy was plotted for anyone and adjust as necessary. If the units are in a reasonable formation before the move that is all I need to do. If not I pay attention to the end points so that platoons are in a formation I want them to be in the end. Also I usually add some pauses so that small units (HQ, LMG, FOs etc) don't get ahead of the squads. Last thing you want is the company CO to be leading the charge all by themselves after a few minutes.
All of that is for units not in contact. Any contact or likely hood of contact and there is no way I'd do that for a company sized force. Then I would do platoons at the largest and there would be a lot more adjusting and pauses and changes for quick to hunt going on as appropriate for the terrain. Not to mention ending in cover of some kind if possible.

You can always rely upon a forum of gamers to create more drama than at an Alabama Sweet 16 party.
If you've made a decent Battlepack off your own back, that is admirable and we'd all love to play it. You seem to have taken what looked to me as a 'jokey' remark way out of context.
I can't imagine a first responder having such a thin skin. Please take a while to calm down and come back afresh.

You can always rely upon a forum of gamers to create more drama than at an Alabama Sweet 16 party.
If you've made a decent Battlepack off your own back, that is admirable and we'd all love to play it. You seem to have taken what looked to me as a 'jokey' remark way out of context.
I can't imagine a first responder having such a thin skin. Please take a while to calm down and come back afresh.

If the last couple of years are anything to go by, the bones for 2024 will be very similar to the ones for 2023, which themselves were basically the ones for 2022.

I've not seen this scenario, but it's a conversion of an existing cmbn scenario. That's interesting for the comparison, but it does mean that the weapon ranges and effects are significantly more lethal - for example, your javelin team was originally a light mortar, which is both a little more useful in this context, but decidedly less impactful when it hits. Since that was a US 60mm, it similarly lacks smoke.
So, caveats aside, the core principles are the same. For any river crossing one has to establish control of the far bank as much as possible, then cross, consolidate that position, then push on.
Given the tools available to you, you have to do this with direct fires. This means finding covered approaches to the rivers edge, and forming a base of fire there. In CMBN you'd have bocage to help you do this, but I imagine in a CMBS conversion this would be harder.
You're probably forced into doing this by stealth. Holding fire with short arcs, and sneaking up to the hedge lines - taking advantage of the javelin thermal optics and engaging in a short, sharp and probably costly firefight. The enemy's night vision will cut into this plan, but you should still have the advantage.
You do still want to isolate sections as much as possible, so focusing on a single flank is probably the plan here.

Something like this probably wouldn't have worked if the bulk of the active military force hadn't been in the west bank ethnically cleansing villages so settlers could move in.

They need a better police force not an army. 

It´s a while ago that I played it, but as I remember I got a total victory (setting Iron/turn based) using a leapfrogging advance right up the middle. Take care to make minal steps forward using the majority of your force for supressing fire. Concentrate on heavy wepons. The enemy will finally run out of ammo.
In these games infantery generally tends to run to fast and get exhausted soon, compared to reality. So advance just one square where possible (depends on terrain of course, which you should assess carefullly). Good luck!

Alrighty, I will take the bait.
First of all, I am no tactical genius. But I have been around a while playing CM.
SOILERS AND SPOILERS
 
 
 
 
I approached/entered the trenches far on my left flank. I did this in conjunction with a delayed arrival area barrage. Getting the barrage set up on the first orders opportunity is very useful. After that, you MUST have line of site if you have no TRP's. But then plan on your first few turns to move that platoon HQ in so it DOES have LOS to the barrage area. Makes it accurater. Is that a word? 
Split your squads up into 2 teams so they move in smaller groups. SPREAD OUT!! Yes sarge...
I moved the HMGs up center leftish and rightish for overwatch and used the sniper as the probe sacrificial iron cross recipient who crossed the creek stream and got some spots.
Make note of your delay when the barrage will arrive. 30 minute battle. I think my barrage said it needed 9 minutes to get going. Keep checking this and everybody has ear comms like a SEAL TEAM. 
Get your guys over there but not too close. Demo charge dudes are back a bit until needed. Slow crawl up but then let them catch their breath.
IT WORKED!
But the scoring is hosed I am sorry to say as I got 200 points for the bunkers but so did the US side? "What the fudge?" EDIT: No, I am wrong. The scoring is fine. I misread what I was looking at. I took too many casualties to get the total victory is what happened.
I will post some screenshats here in a bit.



@Thatguy Thanks for asking about this as I had never even tried this scenario. It is my size scenario for sure.
Best wishes to you as you enjoy this great game.
 
 
 
 

Really interesting points and I will have to pick that book up. I also have this on my ever-growing wish-list.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Blitzkrieg-Reality-Hitlers-Lightning-France-ebook/dp/B01FTAPZUA/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
I read manoeuvre warfare as a way to defeat a large force with brains rather than brawn. Does it apply in practice on either a tactical or operational/strategic level?
Tactically much of the army handbooks in the UK and US focus on attacking an abstract isolated enemy. Manoeuvre warfare principles work fantastically here. You can fix a unit with a support section, run around the back while they are suppressed and run into them with your bayonets fixed flinging in grenades with gay abandon. 
In practice, in a peer to peer conflict, if you come across an isolated squad it's going to be a sentry or OP. Sure you can attack it in the way described above but where does it take you? In a conflict like this you are far more likely, such as at Goose Green for want of a better example, to find a mutually supported position where any attack is going to have to start of life as a frontal attack. You mass firepower at the weakest point you can find, with the best covered approaches, but realise that any obvious approach path is going to be obvious to the opponent.
You have to create any sort of flank with overwhelming fire power at a point, but a manoeuvreist view of this isn't going to work unless you're also stopping the enemy from reinforcing this position, therefore a broad front is essential.
Ultimately you are going to be smashing into a prepared line and it's not going to be pretty (I am more than open to someone telling me this is wrong!)
Likewise on a larger scale, Market Garden sounded fabulous on paper, but the obvious logistical issues (in hindsight) sacrificed a lot of blokes when a more traditional 'steel not flesh' approach would have been just as successful.

I am by no means an expert but I tend to do my OCOKA like outlined in my DAR (which I really must finish). It is really useful in the early stages and helps identify KT and NAIs and TAIs too. 
 
It depends on your forces I guess. If you have a boatload of artillery then there's no reason not to deny the terrain to the enemy with indirect fires, make him at least keep his head down if he's up there or dissuade him from trying to go up there in the first instance. If you have only manpower and armour then you'd probably have to find a way to take it.
Movement techniques would be my go-to, you'd have to use bounds, either successive or alternating and provide all round overwatch to the element that's moving.
When I get away from the above (tired, CBA or am not thorough enough) is when I usually get into trouble, and I get into trouble a lot
MMM

Yes I think that you may have hit the nail on the head there. 
In striving for finding the perfect SBF position, the perfect covered approach etc belies that most of the time there's going to be a fairly significant opposition in those key areas and you're just going to have to pick a place to overwhelm the enemy with fire and move in using the best positions you can.