grungar

The problem of infantry protection has already been mentioned. The benefit of fortifications is puny. It's a pity that fortifications are so neglected. Also, Pixelsoldiers tend to be too brave. They often continue to run under fire (default reaction of most move orders) and they also tend to kneel while under fire (I use an animation mod by ROckinharry (?) so that my men stay prone more often and survive much better). And Pixelsoldiers they don't make the best use of cover (which is understandable, as this must be a highly complicated issue to tackle). I'd also like to point out that I often get the impression that infantry often seems to move somewhat unflexibly and slowly - almost as if stuck in some jelly. But then again, this is balanced out by the bad shooting skills of many pixelsoldiers.

-------------------

Another point which has not been mentioned in this thread yet is map design. While I understand that many other players don't share my opinion, I'm still convinced that the map design is one of the main culprits for the exagerated casualty rate in CM.

Of course not all maps are the same and many maps are well researched and realistically scaled. But the big bunch of sandbox quickbattle maps are anything but realistic. Their landscapes resemble tabletop miniature landscapes. In general, the footprint of most terrain features (a forest, a field, a hill,...) is too small and there are too many terrain features in too little space. Exaggerated example: On a 1x1km CM map, you can often find 2 hills, 5 woods, 2 villages. In reality, such a space would comprise half a hill (sloping gently, not cutting LOS!), a village and perhaps a part of a forest.  

The main consequence of "too many small terrain features in too little space" is that lines of sight/fire are cut much too frequently. This in turn reduces the range at which combat typically takes place. For a combat mission player, a 200m LOF feels like a luxurious "long range". In reality, it's still well within rifle range and all too common! Now, if the combat distance is "too" short, it's no surprise that casualty rates are high. The attacker often has to move into what amounts to an ambush by the defender. Often, there is not a single position from which you could bring your support weapons like hMGs to bear on the enemy from a reasonable distance (outside rifle range! at a range at which you're not immediately spotted and shot dead and thus have time to set up!). On many maps, there is no way for the attacker to establish a "soft" contact and build up fire to suppress a position. Most contact in Combat Mission games is hard contact at point blank range. 

Hills are particularly critical, because going prone doesn't reduce your exposure that much when fired at from above at short range. On gentler, flatter slopes, things are different. 

---------------

Another issue is that weapons who are supposed to be very good at suppression often can't be used effectively. The main victims are machine gun teams. Not only are they handicapped by map design (as mentioned above), but also the way that area fire works makes their use very unreliable and fiddly. You need to have LOS onto the GROUND in your target-area spot. Needless to say that it is often impossible for a MG team that lies prone to see any spot on the ground. You're not allowed to fire in a "direction" if you cannot see a spot on the ground. Thus MGs are often unable to fire - reverse slope targets everywhere, no line of fire! Also, you can't fire through bushes. The only way around this is to have an elevated position. 

Another issue for MGs is that the game does not allow them to target more than 1 action spot (a front of 8m) in a single turn. If firing from a proper distance, the gun would hardly need to be traversed to cover an area much larger than a single action spot. There are reasons why MGs in Combat Mission are extremely underwhelming and don't have the suppressive effect they should have. Less suppression = more casualties. 

I find that, when leading my men, if I have a low-cost victory and all (or most) survive, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
When my men die and suffer needless casualties and fail, I have a cold beer and look back at what happened.
 

 
 

A few reasons i can think of that might contribute to higher casulties...
- time...in many scenarios the time limit might be shorter then what it would have been IRL.
- lack of micro management...especially in larger scenarios we might not split the squads up as much as desirable to avoid micromanagment.
- carelesness...we might not take the time to make sure we have base of fire/suppresion and otherwise security in place to a simular degree as we would have done IRL.
- WEGO...the AI might not react to unfortuness events during the one minute turns as well as a RL human would.
- Abstractions....things like fighting in and around buildings does not really give the playrer quite the same level of control as IRL.
- IRL a squadleader would handle the squad...a platoonleader would handle the platoon etc...in CM you as for example a battalion commander is forced to handle every little detail yourself of your reinforced battalion...every turn. The finer detailes might be missed every now and then 😊...

Many of the scenarios are designed around puzzle solving and play out almost every time like a siege. There are many symptoms of these conditions, but one of the most prominent is of closely matched headcounts or map populations between defender and attacker and this invariably promotes high lethality within a given slice of map. Force-to-space ratios with a high density of units promote extremely meticulous play and are often excessively relied upon to make up for a perceived passivity of the AI on defense. 
As long as you're making reasonable decisions you have a right to expect reasonable results, and the game should score you fairly for that. Unfortunately, I think the way that we score the player's conduct in most of the scenarios is sort of poor and in a minority of cases, egregiously unfair or abusive. 
 

Comparing the outcome of real war actions with the ones modeled in the game,I always notice that the casualty rate is usually quiet high in the game compared with the real stuff.I mean experienced players not playing boldly and trying to do it as close as to real combat procedures.A part from the AI behaviour in one side,I think there is a reason for that.In my opinion,infantry in the game don't have the same chances of survival as in real life due to the poor modelling of defensive works or the,sometimes,difficulties in getting apropiate cover in terrain features.You can't find parapets in the game,fortified houses and underground basements in buildings nor underground shelters; it's told the protection in shallow trenches and foxholes is abstracted but I m not quiet sure at which degree.What's more,some weapons seem to be overpowered,like the SMG which are deadly accurate and lethal beyond its teorically effective range
This issues should be improbe(probably in a CM3?) in order to make the game more challenging and realistic.This game,differently from others,is focused on infantry which I just like it so,why not to care more about our dear pixeltruppen?.What do you think about it?
 

What i would suggest when starting out...
Learn the ins and outs of setting up QB battles. Here you can quickly pick your desired forces as well as the terrain (map) to fight on.
You can start as small as you like and for learning purposes i suggest that you pick both your own and the AI forces...remember you don't have to use all the points avaliable to 'purchase' units...
If you want to...you can pick a single platoon on your side and a single squad on the enemy side....to start with.
Use these QB battles to try out any units you like to experiment with...and gradually increase the side of both forces.
I would further suggest to play these QB 'traning battles' both vs the AI and also HOTSEAT against youself. Playing hotseat against youself will allow you to see what effekt various weapons have against various targets at various distances and in various terrains.
It will further give you a feel for how FOG works in the game...what you will be able to see of the enemy and when.
Among other things I find these QB battles very quick and easy to set up to test how the various tanks stacks up vs eachother...
What kind of suppretion...and killingpower will the various weapons have...
What can i expect from the artillery of various calliber against various targets..
And welcome to the game...I belive you will become 'stuck' here...😁

Below, in italics, is a post by @YankeeDog that I have always found useful. 
Infantry will not attempt to close assault vehicles from inside a building; you have to order them outside. Also, NEVER give infantry a TARGET order if you want them to close assault a vehicle or bunker. The TARGET order tells a unit to use whatever weapons it has against the target, regardless of effectiveness. This can be useful, e.g., when you want a unit to shoot small arms at a tank from one direction to distract it, while another unit assaults the tank from a different direction. But the close assaulting unit should be left to make its own targeting decisions. Possibly a short cover arc to prevent it from engaging other, more distant enemy, but nothing more than this. Generally speaking, as long as an infantry unit is in good order and has hand grenades, it will use them on any armor or bunker that is in grenade range.
Rule of thumb; a fire team must be outside a building to close assault.  However grenades and demo charges will get thrown from the upper floors on to open topped vehicles.  
Below is my Grenade CQB vs Armor: 
1. Use a fire team with a lot of hand grenades (typically an assault team).  The fewer grenades the AI has it seems more reluctant to use them.  
2. Give fire team a 360oTarget Arc1 of 24 meters.
3. Exit building.  (teams must be outside to close assault vehicle) 
4. Fast fire team to within 2 A/S of the flank or rear of the tank.
5. On their own the team will throw grenades.
6. Prepare for the tank crew to dismount shooting.  (When they bail it will be like the OK Corral )  
Notes: 1) An Armor Target Arc will not allow the fire team to fire on the bailed out tank crew.

I can't discern anything that is wrong with that screen shot. Going from a TV to smaller, dedicated monitor usually should be an upgrade image-wise, unless you have a very expensive TV with high-end image adjustments.
Are you running at 2560x1440 in CM ? Typically this is done by selecting the 'desktop' resolution (the default) within the Options panel. The significant problem with increasing your resolution is that the user interface (UI) isn't scalable, so it gets quite a bit smaller. Looking at what you have in that screen shot suggests that you MIGHT be running at 1920 x 1080 and NOT at 2560x1440.

When starts, I sent my forces mainly to two directions, left valley and right hill. Also I sent one or two scout teams to the middle to enhance my spotting. Positioning my T-90 in the woods.  Trees sometimes can help you to absorb some javelins hitting.  When Bradleys are spotted, I ask my tank to concentrate their focus on where the Bradleys supposed to be.  If I remembered correctly, some Bradleys have APS(however you cant tell since ERA and APS versions are the same), so I try to use tank to kill them.  
BTW, I suspect US army has UAV hovering on the battlefield. I lost quite a few inf due to precision artillery strike.  So move infantry from time to time if you don't want too much casualty.

I wonder if this is the same semenovka found in the title east front..."strong point semeovka" supposedly a german strong point was centerd here and attacked in 1942 I believe

The tanks will choose the appropriate ammo themselves (usually AP). And its really easy to kill pill boxes with tanks most of the time, as long as you're facing the front. Coincidentally, I just ran a little test with a tank firing on a pillbox a couple days ago. I was knocking down men inside with coax mg fire before a shell finally entered through the vision slit.

I'd recommend that you also have a chat with @MOS:96B2P 
He is (IMHO) the master of long-duration high-complexity scripting. 
If you have either CM:BS or CM:SF2, he has already made scenarios of exactly this type that you can try out ('TOC' & 'Coup' respectively).
Almost all of those dudes were dead by this point in time. 
There are plenty of contemporary accounts of German officers bemoaning the poor quality of their troops in the Ardennes offensive.....IIRC I have exactly such an account from a major within KG Peiper itself, but I'd have to dig to find it.

Ok so I booted up this mission, and some first impressions:
1: Wow, this thing is huge. Very impressive. Is it a master map or did you do the map, yourself?
2: For the first time ever, I actually miss having some recon jeeps to scout ahead and find clear routes 
3: Some of the house placements in the towns seem a bit odd - for example, there are some small shacks at odd angles to the roads. Also, I think towns back then had less space between the buildings than nowadays. But I haven't been able to find any WW2 aerial photo of La Gleize to compare. Just disregard this point if I'm wrong.
4: I noticed that you set ground conditions to muddy, and temperature to freezing. If you want there to be a bogging risk and force the player to keep his tanks on the roads, you should not set subzero teperatures, because it overrides the muddy conditions. Basically the game treats all mud as frozen solid. I've played several scenarios where the designer warns against mud, but where there's actually almost no danger of bogging, because he also set temperatures to freezing.
5: The infantry in the Panzerspitze is mostly regulars with poor soft factors. I think the spearpoint of KG Peiper would be the place where the Germans put some of their very best remaining units. Not saying they should all be elite +2, but I think it would be warranted to bump up their quality considerably. I haven't checked what quality later units have, but I think they should also be quite capable.

Not sure Bulletpoint, it's the training scenario in the demo. Terrain was forest/woods. Maybe it's just very hot?
Good post MOS, and I think all of that is pretty clear, my curiosity is more nuanced though. Why did the rifle squad tire in 100m when the scout squad could move in the same manner, through similar terrain over a kilometer without dropping below Ready? Heat, fitness, load, terrain and movement type all play a part we would assume.  My curiosity isn't about what causes fatigue, but more developing a feel for which causes how much of it. I know from experience that if you have a platoon and have one squad draw an extra 1000 rounds of ammo, it will tire before the other two squads. Is it absolute, that 10% more weight equals 10% more fatigue? Or is there more of a threshold sort of mechanic, where under a certain weight it has no/little effect, and over a certain amount there is a noticable effect?
So really, it's not what causes fatigue that I am curious about, but more subtly, which does how much, to whom and when? Are scouts more resistant to it all things being equal for example? Does an additional 500 rounds of ammo carried cause exactly half the additional 'fatigue load' that 1000 rounds would?  Honestly, it's all interwoven and I suspect that attempting to analyze it all is futile. It's a grey thing that isn't so easily distilled to black and white.

for instance the manuel says that regs are trained but have little combat experience...how this measures in the game BF has that kinda thing classified.      There are a lot of green troops in the ww2 titles because imo those troops represent fresh replacements or rear erea personnel to replace heavy casusalties sustained. the allies just did not have that many full strength regiments with reliable troops as the war progressed. 

The US Army Green Books are always a good reference and you can read them online https://history.army.mil/html/bookshelves/collect/usaww2.html

support your local playtester!  

"liberal snowflakes" are they ones that fall neither to the left nor the right?

If you want a game that simulates "bandwidth" just check out hps's tigers unleashed. for those that know about it it actually works now. to explain how play unfolds is rather daunting but my experience is the command and control from the commanders perspective in that title is very challenging from the get go. It also simulates friction in a way that makes me understand what is meant by the term. Its to bad the title is only in 2d with rather drab maps. If you want a game that simulates the commanders viewpoint it might be worth 50 dollars for some to check it out.It is also heavily documented for those who love manuels. cheers

This is a major trend for both the US Army and the Marines. As such, I believe it deserves to be here as something to be at least considered as the CM game system evolves. We had simplified sewer movement as far back as CMx1, but what's discussed here is so granular that even CMx2 may not be able to handle it. Even so, am of the opinion and belief BFC, if not already aware, and the CM players in the larger sense, need to be aware of this. There are some 10,000 known underground complexes outside of the US, which gives some idea of the magnitude of the problem. Most of these are not DUMB (Deep Underground Military Base) type zones, but rather, sewage, utility, transport and communication tunnels under cities, any of which can be a nightmare for attacking troops. Ground seized above will never be secure if what lies beneath isn't.

https://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-army/2019/02/26/the-subterranean-battlefield-warfare-is-going-underground-into-dark-tight-spaces/

Regards,

John Kettler
 

is it just me or does the sun really rise in a dawn scn. it sure seems that way to me.

is it just me or does the sun really rise in a dawn scn. it sure seems that way to me.

WWII infantry aren't carrying 40 pounds of body armor and running through extreme desert heat. So there's less of a penalty for running your men here and there. CMSF2 infantry on a hot day are likely to quickly tire to the point of exhaustion. Then they won't have the mojo to do what needs to be done when the firing starts.

I use Fast movement a lot. The TacAI does as well, during Assault commands - the moving element moves Fast whilst the other element is in overwatch.
 
The order prioritises movement above all - you're the least likely to stop and open fire on available targets, so you have the most control over your actions.
 
Some theoretical examples:

1) I'm developing a firefight. One squad in the platoon has made contact, and is exchanging fire with the enemy.  I decide that I need to send a fireteam to a specific piece of cover to add to the outgoing volume of fire, and I don't want them engaging from any other location. Fast move is the best way to do that, quickly and with as much certainty as possible.
2) The lead squad of a platoon comes under fire. The rest of the platoon is in good position to return fire, but the lead squad is cowering out of C2, so can't share spotting contacts, meaning that the enemy has not been spotted by the rest of the platoon. My HQ element will Fast move between platoon elements to pick up the contacts and Fast move back to share them to the other squads.

3) Incoming mortar rounds. Priority number one is being anywhere but here, so you don't want to start engaging in a firefight.
 
Fast moving tires them out, obviously, which will degrade their movement (Fast->Quick->Move->Slow). It's also a large commitment - if your order was unsafe (e.g., the fireteam element you've moved up to support is flanked by an enemy MG), then you've probably just lost that element. You should therefore use it in situations where you're confident about the move, and where you are not expecting to cover large distances or make multiple Fast moves in the future.

FAST orders your guys to run and to NOT stop and use weapons.  When ordered to move QUICK, they may stop and use weapons if they see an enemy.